Are Podiatrists Trained How To Do This

[janV88]

---

Members do not see this ad.

God this post is so wrong and misinformed ... I can't even break it down. Just ignore.

Actually I am willing to bet that other than what I highlighted below, which is all of the opinions I included, you will be hard pressed to find misinformation.

I'm just a pre-pod but I think I have a slightly better understanding of the healthcare system than the average pre-med/pod/etc. being that my mom is a nurse and my brother is an EM resident.

Training is everything. More training, with or without expanded scope, is never dangerous.

Remember...MD/DO may legally have "unlimited scope" but actual practice is limited by training. Your hospital privileges are determined by your training. That is why, in most hospitals, EM physicians do not have privileges outside of the ER. And why an IM physician cannot perform surgery without being arrested. And why an Ortho surgeon cannot practice IM. (that last one is probably possible in rural or strictly private practice, but good luck trying to get admitting privileges at a large hospital). The reason for all this is training. Practitioners are held accountable based on their training. Even if the procedure or practice is within scope...good luck with defending yourself in court without sufficient training.

I can argue that the "unlimited scope" of MD/DO physicians is dangerous. I can't even count how many misinformed pre-med/med students on SDN post about how an MD/DO can do anything, etc. These same pre-med/med students will be physicians some day and think they can do whatever they want...regardless of training or proficiency. And if you want a anecdotal example then here it goes. My mom told me once of a pulmonologist who had a patient that was complaining of having a little difficulty breathing. The pulmonologist decided to intubate. Instead of calling anesthesia, he decided to do it himself. Long story short, he failed and the patient died. The patient was non emergent, he was breathing ok but not well. The patient had some difficulty but it wasn't like he would die if he wasn't intubated. My mom told me that the pulmonologist was not used to doing intubations and, unlike anesthesiologists, he was not doing them daily, weekly, or even monthly.

Remember people...scope of practice is just a bunch of laws. With a large enough lobbying group (nurses come to mind), expansion can be easily achieved. The best way to regulate a profession is to find an appropriate niche and assemble the training/curriculum around that niche. If a profession is not performing in that particular niche...less and less of the public will go to them and the niche will eventually die.

In my opinion, I think scope of practice laws do little to properly "police" practicioners. It gives them a clear line of what they can and cant do. And everyone knows human nature, tell them they cant do it and they will. They will fight for expanded scope. And when they will practice to the limits of the defined scope regardless of training. That is why you often hear of DC's referring to themselves as PCP's and so gung ho about doing physicals. I have even heard of DC's saying that they can legally give birth! Yes by law they can (depending on the state) and I bet a small percentage will...just because it is within their "scope".

 

[JaggerPlate]

I didn't want to break it down, nor did I want to sound like a jerk - I actually came back to SDN to edit my post because it was harsh, but I'll go ahead and give my spin on it:

I'm just a pre-pod but I think I have a slightly better understanding of the healthcare system than the average pre-med/pod/etc. being that my mom is a nurse and my brother is an EM resident.

Sorry, but this doesn't give you any inside knowledge or a better understand of Healthcare. I have three nurses in my family, know countless people in medical school, I've worked with residents, med students, physicians, in various hospitals, clinics, etc, and I would not claim one bit that this gives one a superior knowledge.

Training is everything. More training, with or without expanded scope, is never dangerous.

Half correct. Training is extremely important, but saying expanded scope without expanded training is acceptable is false. No one currently in DC school would accept or want more training if it didn't lead to more opportunities. More opportunities, in this case, results in a wider scope of practice. The OP and VanBamm are a perfect example of this ... they feel DC schools are becoming more scientific, and because of this, they feel they are now adequately trained to act as primary care physicians. This is false, and dangerous to patients because, as you said, they are not trained and, ergo, not qualified.

Remember...MD/DO may legally have "unlimited scope" but actual practice is limited by training. Your hospital privileges are determined by your training. That is why, in most hospitals, EM physicians do not have privileges outside of the ER. And why an IM physician cannot perform surgery without being arrested. And why an Ortho surgeon cannot practice IM. (that last one is probably possible in rural or strictly private practice, but good luck trying to get admitting privileges at a large hospital). The reason for all this is training. Practitioners are held accountable based on their training. Even if the procedure or practice is within scope...good luck with defending yourself in court without sufficient training.

Yes, practice is limited by training and common sense. However, you do have some misconceptions here ... first, all MD/DOs have an unlimited license to practice medicine and surgery. Medicine is diagnosis, treatment, and script rights, and surgery (in my state for example) is defined as any cutting or burning of the skin. So to say an IM or FM would end up in court and arrested for removing a skin tag, or claiming they aren't qualified to do so is incorrect. Of course they aren't performing Ortho operations because they don't have the malpractice, hospital rights, and are smart enough not to do so.

Also, what do you mean 'privileges' outside the ER? ER residents can moonlight, ER docs can work in urgent care clinics, serve as PCPs in rural areas, do cosmetic stuff, etc.

However, my point in all this, is that there is overlap in fields, and this overlap comes from a lot of standardized training in medical school and residency. DCs don't have any of this, so really there is no overlap and no reason to believe that just because a FM doc can't do an Ortho procedure, a DC could be a PCP.

Furthermore, something that comes along with the basic physician abilities and rights of having the MD/DO (+ internship) is CME classes. Physicians can further their education because they have a base and alter what they do. As long as the malpractice allows for it, docs can do quite a bit. Again, DCs don't have any of these options and cannot.

I can argue that the "unlimited scope" of MD/DO physicians is dangerous. I can't even count how many misinformed pre-med/med students on SDN post about how an MD/DO can do anything, etc. These same pre-med/med students will be physicians some day and think they can do whatever they want...regardless of training or proficiency. And if you want a anecdotal example then here it goes. My mom told me once of a pulmonologist who had a patient that was complaining of having a little difficulty breathing. The pulmonologist decided to intubate. Instead of calling anesthesia, he decided to do it himself. Long story short, he failed and the patient died. The patient was non emergent, he was breathing ok but not well. The patient had some difficulty but it wasn't like he would die if he wasn't intubated. My mom told me that the pulmonologist was not used to doing intubations and, unlike anesthesiologists, he was not doing them daily, weekly, or even monthly.

That doc made a mistake ... pretty plain and simple, and I can see how you would want to use this as a rant against physician scope of practice, but here's my point ... That doc is still trained. Still went through med school, residency, fellowship, etc, and yet did something stupid. There are probably hundreds of pulms out there that intubate all the time and they are fine, this one was rusty and shouldn't have done it. He's still put in the time and made a mistake, imagine allowing DCs who haven't done any of this to do medical procedures! Nightmare.

Remember people...scope of practice is just a bunch of laws. With a large enough lobbying group (nurses come to mind), expansion can be easily achieved. The best way to regulate a profession is to find an appropriate niche and assemble the training/curriculum around that niche. If a profession is not performing in that particular niche...less and less of the public will go to them and the niche will eventually die.

Scope of practice can always be expanded, but there still has to be some basis. Nurses expanded their rights with a solid medical basis and further education (ie NP, DNP, CRNA, etc). However, it's going to be a fight, and there are probably a lot bigger lobbying groups out there to fight against. Don't kid yourself that it will be easy, especially because the DCs (in this thread) don't even want to go about it that way. They want to implement unregulated classes into their curriculum without having to first achieve one degree and augment it with additional training (ie RN -> NP), and expect an expanded scope of practice. This would be horrible. What would the practicing DCs do? Would they sit idly by and watch people with the same degree have more rights and do nothing about it? Would they accept going to more courses to have the same degree they already achieved? When DCs revamp and standardize a curriculum, figure out how additional training for older DCs, figure out malpractice insurance, privileges, etc, then they can worry about expanded practice rights in all 50 states. It's anything but easy.

Furthermore, the problem here is that there is no niche to fill. There is a gap in primary care. So they think they can fill it with no appropriate training whatsoever? Should PhDs and techs fill the gap? I mean, they are trained in sciece-ish things and work in the health care sector? No, they aren't trained. Neither are DCs ... so there goes that niche. A MSK expert who can also act as a PCP? Sorry, but DOs who do OMM/NMM, PM&R docs, Pain management guys exist, so no niche there ... and no script or privilege rights. There simply isn't a gap that DCs with unregulated courses can fill, and it's too late for a total curriculum revamp, push for expansion, etc, to fill those rights.

In my opinion, I think scope of practice laws do little to properly "police" practicioners. It gives them a clear line of what they can and cant do. And everyone knows human nature, tell them they cant do it and they will. They will fight for expanded scope. And when they will practice to the limits of the defined scope regardless of training. That is why you often hear of DC's referring to themselves as PCP's and so gung ho about doing physicals. I have even heard of DC's saying that they can legally give birth! Yes by law they can (depending on the state) and I bet a small percentage will...just because it is within their "scope".

They can give birth? You mean oversee a birth or deliver a baby? Maybe in a home birth, but absolutely not in any hospital in the nation. No way. Listen, you can bash "scope" all you want, vilify doctors as people who think they know it all, but don't, but the point is these things exist for a reason, even if they don't serve an adequate purpose in your opinion. There is a difference between a FP doc pushing the limits of his practice by pulling in a little derm, shooting botox, etc (which is still legal, but possible not properly within a scope, or becomes within a scope because they have the basic knowledge and do the procedures over and over until they are really good), and a chiropractor performing medical diagnosis. The scope of chiro is very clear: 'can't perform medicine or surgery,' the medical license says 'physician and surgeon,' one is legal one is not. Doctors can push ethical boundaries and stretch their interpretation of their license, kill patients, and be sued, but trust me, it won't be like a DC doing the same.

 

[JaggerPlate]

Eh after reading your post before mine and my recap ... I think you have a few incorrect statements, and a lot of false assumptions and opinions I wildly disagree with. I also have a feeling you aren't the biggest fan of physicians and what they think they can do. My point is pretty simple ... DCs shouldn't act as PCP physicians. They shouldn't get more training in medical stuff because it wouldn't be adequate, but would lead to wanting an expansion of practice or the misconception that they can act as PCPs and doing so without legal rights ... meaning it wouldn't be within their scope (though they think it is) and it would be illegal. There is a gap in primary care, but DCs aren't the people to fill it, nor will any curriculum tweaking make it appropriate. If you disagree with any of this, I suppose then we really disagree.

 

[janV88]

Sorry, but this doesn't give you any inside knowledge or a better understand of Healthcare. I have three nurses in my family, know countless people in medical school, I've worked with residents, med students, physicians, in various hospitals, clinics, etc, and I would not claim one bit that this gives one a superior knowledge.

Like I said...slightly better. Never did I say I know the ins and outs of healthcare or that I possess "superior knowledge". And I am not the one trying to dictate what an entire profession should and shouldn't do.

Half correct. Training is extremely important, but saying expanded scope without expanded training is acceptable is false. No one currently in DC school would accept or want more training if it didn't lead to more opportunities. More opportunities, in this case, results in a wider scope of practice. The OP and VanBamm are a perfect example of this ... they feel DC schools are becoming more scientific, and because of this, they feel they are now adequately trained to act as primary care physicians. This is false, and dangerous to patients because, as you said, they are not trained and, ergo, not qualified.

I never said the above. All I said was training is important regardless of the scope issue.

Yes, practice is limited by training and common sense. However, you do have some misconceptions here ... first, all MD/DOs have an unlimited license to practice medicine and surgery. Medicine is diagnosis, treatment, and script rights, and surgery (in my state for example) is defined as any cutting or burning of the skin. So to say an IM or FM would end up in court and arrested for removing a skin tag, or claiming they aren't qualified to do so is incorrect. Of course they aren't performing Ortho operations because they don't have the malpractice, hospital rights, and are smart enough not to do so.

You know what I meant by surgery and I did not mean minor office procedures.

Also, what do you mean 'privileges' outside the ER? ER residents can moonlight, ER docs can work in urgent care clinics, serve as PCPs in rural areas, do cosmetic stuff, etc.

ER residents can moonlight...in the ER. Urgent care clinics are like ERs except less complicated cases. And maybe I should have expanded on it more when I mentioned it but rural areas and private practice are exceptions. Yes they can get away with it in rural areas and private practice offices but an ER physician will most likely not be able to get hospital privileges for botox injections. And they would be hard pressed to find a hospital that will grant privileges for them to admit and medically manage patients outside of the ER and ICU/CCU (depending if they did an ICU/CCU fellowship). <- Notice how training dictates hospital privileges and practice.

However, my point in all this, is that there is overlap in fields, and this overlap comes from a lot of standardized training in medical school and residency. DCs don't have any of this, so really there is no overlap and no reason to believe that just because a FM doc can't do an Ortho procedure, a DC could be a PCP.

I agree with most of what you say here. I never once mentioned that it was okay for DCs to be PCPs.

That doc made a mistake ... pretty plain and simple, and I can see how you would want to use this as a rant against physician scope of practice, but here's my point ... That doc is still trained. Still went through med school, residency, fellowship, etc, and yet did something stupid. There are probably hundreds of pulms out there that intubate all the time and they are fine, this one was rusty and shouldn't have done it. He's still put in the time and made a mistake, imagine allowing DCs who haven't done any of this to do medical procedures! Nightmare.

Yes I agree that the doc made a mistake. But my point is that just because it is within his scope of practice to intubate...does not mean it was the correct thing to do. From what I have heard, it is normal protocol to consult Gas for intubation in non-emergent patients. And I was trying to equate this to scope of practice and how some practitioners, like DCs, sometimes practice to the edge of their scope just because it is still within their scope...regardless of training and proficiency.

Furthermore, the problem here is that there is no niche to fill. There is a gap in primary care. So they think they can fill it with no appropriate training whatsoever? Should PhDs and techs fill the gap? I mean, they are trained in sciece-ish things and work in the health care sector? No, they aren't trained. Neither are DCs ... so there goes that niche. A MSK expert who can also act as a PCP? Sorry, but DOs who do OMM/NMM, PM&R docs, Pain management guys exist, so no niche there ... and no script or privilege rights. There simply isn't a gap that DCs with unregulated courses can fill, and it's too late for a total curriculum revamp, push for expansion, etc, to fill those rights.

I agree with you here. Notice how I never mentioned this in my post. I simply stated my opinion that a practitioner should find a niche and develop their training around that niche. I never delved into whether a niche for DCs in PCP/MSk existed.

They can give birth?

You know what I meant. It's late and sometimes what I think and what I type is a little different.

Maybe in a home birth, but absolutely not in any hospital in the nation.

From what I heard, they can in their office. I was just illustrating my opinion that by having a scope of practice, it draws a line of what a practitioner can and cant do, and causes some of them to practice to the edge of their scope...regardless of training.

There is a difference between a FP doc pushing the limits of his practice by pulling in a little derm, shooting botox, etc (which is still legal, but possible not properly within a scope, or becomes within a scope because they have the basic knowledge and do the procedures over and over until they are really good), and a chiropractor performing medical diagnosis. The scope of chiro is very clear: 'can't perform medicine or surgery,' the medical license says 'physician and surgeon,' one is legal one is not. Doctors can push ethical boundaries and stretch their interpretation of their license, kill patients, and be sued, but trust me, it won't be like a DC doing the same.

First off, FP probably has the broadest training and can probably "push" their practice to the edges of all medicine. But of course they can't do surgery. And you know what I mean when i say surgery.

Second, I never mentioned DCs medically diagnosing. I just expressed my opinion that too much training in itself is never dangerous. You are assuming too much. You are assuming that more training will mean wider scope. Why not say that more training is not bad but you do not agree to it leading to a wider scope?

Third, any practitioner who stretches their license without taking into account their training and proficiency, kills patients, and gets sued, is bad news regardless of the initials after their name.




What my point was that by having laws that draw lines in what a person can and can't do will sometimes cause people to push the boundaries. For example, the state of california has a cap on how much rent can increase per year...8% or something like that. Guess what happens to rent every year...it increases by the maximum 8% per year like clock work. Another example is gun control. There is so much gun control in some states that it causes others to push the extent of the gun laws in their state. There was a rally where President Obama spoke at...I believe it was in Arizona but I might be mistaken. Well that state is very lax with gun laws and allows open carry. Guess what someone does across the street to make a point about gun control, he carries an AR-15...that is the civilian version of an M16. Yet another example is the credit card thing going into effect tomorrow. It put limits on credit card companies and interest rates, now they are finding new ways to add more and more fees instead of increasing interest. I could go on with other examples of laws that only make people push the limits but I'm too tired right now.

EDIT: I just want to say that just because my opinion is that scope of practice is not an effective way of of policing practitioners, since laws can be changed with an effective enough lobbying group, does not mean that I support expansion of the current scope of practice. I understand the need for scope of practice laws for safety, etc. It is quick way of providing a level of safety for the public...I am just pointing out its flaws. And no I do not have a better idea.

 

[JaggerPlate]

^^ good post. I think we are arguing semantics more than anything and both making pretty reasonable points. I understand your point of view, and since we don't differ on the main thesis (DC as PCPs), we've got no real reason to arguing silly little points.

 

[AgActual]

Frankly, he is being too generous; the vast, vast majority of chiropractors are still prescribing to biotheistic nonsense and apply completely quack treatments to their patients. Or they get involved in scandalous practice management firms (google "Maximized Living" for a relatively common one) designed to bilk ignorant patients out of their money.

.Links? The "vast, vast majority" is a lot. 80%? 90%? More? Certainly you would have sources which show that a vast, vast majority believe in biotheism, homeopathy, or are intentionally ripping off patients? You wouldn't just claim this for no reason, right? I'm sorry; you are running circles around my dumb chiropractor mind. Also, you spelled "dysfunction" wrong.

.

 

[MDub1]

Eh after reading your post before mine and my recap ... I think you have a few incorrect statements, and a lot of false assumptions and opinions I wildly disagree with. I also have a feeling you aren't the biggest fan of physicians and what they think they can do. My point is pretty simple ... DCs shouldn't act as PCP physicians. They shouldn't get more training in medical stuff because it wouldn't be adequate, but would lead to wanting an expansion of practice or the misconception that they can act as PCPs and doing so without legal rights ... meaning it wouldn't be within their scope (though they think it is) and it would be illegal. There is a gap in primary care, but DCs aren't the people to fill it, nor will any curriculum tweaking make it appropriate. If you disagree with any of this, I suppose then we really disagree.

Not trying to be contentious, but remember that the osteopathic profession started off very much like the chiropractic profession is today. Has expanded training among DO's endangered patients? No, it has blessed our nation with thousands of qualified and caring doctors. I agree that DC's are currently unqualified to act as PCP's and I believe a lot of the field is quackery, but remember that it really wasn't all that long ago that osteopathy was labeled as a "cult" by the AMA. DO's have worked long and hard to expand their training and as a result have become an important part of mainstream medicine today. There's no reason to believe DC's couldn't do the same by expanding/altering their training to include more evidence-based medicine and then proving themselves capable.

Note that I'm saying DC's should or will do this, just saying that it's happened before and could happen again without the patient suffering 🙂.

 

[JaggerPlate]

Not trying to be contentious, but remember that the osteopathic profession started off very much like the chiropractic profession is today. Has expanded training among DO's endangered patients? No, it has blessed our nation with thousands of qualified and caring doctors. I agree that DC's are currently unqualified to act as PCP's and I believe a lot of the field is quackery, but remember that it really wasn't all that long ago that osteopathy was labeled as a "cult" by the AMA. DO's have worked long and hard to expand their training and as a result have become an important part of mainstream medicine today. There's no reason to believe DC's couldn't do the same by expanding/altering their training to include more evidence-based medicine and then proving themselves capable.

Note that I'm saying DC's should or will do this, just saying that it's happened before and could happen again without the patient suffering 🙂.

It also wasn't too long ago that MDs were earned by preceptorships and blood letting was the hot new medical treatment. Also, chiropractic is an offset of osteopathy ... supposedly, either DD Palmer learned HVLA from a student who dropped out of KCOM, or Palmer was worked on and emulated what he say by an osteopath.

You're right ... DOs took the right steps, worked hard, and now are fully licensed physicians ... DCs don't want to do this and it's too late.

 

[AgActual]

DCs don't want to do this and it's too late

Thats true and Jaggerplate has the final say on when a field can expand its role in health care, so I guess chiropractors are stuck where they are.

 

[JaggerPlate]

Thats true and Jaggerplate has the final say on when a field can expand its role in health care, so I guess chiropractors are stuck where they are.

It's funny you use the word 'stuck.' Why would you ever attend an expensive, doctoral program if you felt 'stuck' somewhere after. I bet there are a lot of DCs out there who really enjoy their career and don't feel 'stuck' or at a lower level than they should be. I think people who feel this way (Ag, VanBamm) should analyze why and see if a different type of health professional school which guarantees you the ability to diagnose and treat patients using Western medicine isn't more appropriate.

 

[Busdriver321]

This is ridiculous. First of all, this thread should be in some sort of DC forum. It started out being a semi-appropriate thread but has completely strayed. Second of all, who cares. DCs can practice how they will, MDs and DOs can practice how they will, and DPMs will continue to practice how they will. Sincere discussion about the fields of medicine is a positive thing if it is done appropriately and now you all are just trying to sound better then the next person. Represent your profession or future profession well and stop sounding like you are the shiz and know everything there is to know.

 

[AgActual]

It's funny you use the word 'stuck.' Why would you ever attend an expensive, doctoral program if you felt 'stuck' somewhere after. I bet there are a lot of DCs out there who really enjoy their career and don't feel 'stuck' or at a lower level than they should be. I think people who feel this way (Ag, VanBamm) should analyze why and see if a different type of health professional school which guarantees you the ability to diagnose and treat patients using Western medicine isn't more appropriate.

Well perhaps you are content with your field remaining static until the end of time but some of us enjoy progress.

 

[AgActual]

This is ridiculous. First of all, this thread should be in some sort of DC forum. It started out being a semi-appropriate thread but has completely strayed. Second of all, who cares. DCs can practice how they will, MDs and DOs can practice how they will, and DPMs will continue to practice how they will. Sincere discussion about the fields of medicine is a positive thing if it is done appropriately and now you all are just trying to sound better then the next person. Represent your profession or future profession well and stop sounding like you are the shiz and know everything there is to know.

Agreed, except the Student Doctor Network has stated that they don't feel that chiropractic is a legitimate health care field or something to that effect, so we don't' get our own board. Indeed it is a wonderful thing for members of different health care fields to come together and learn from each other, have spirited discussions and debates, etc. However, the general consensus at the SDN is that DCs should be left out.

And that is why we are stuck having a chiropractic discussion in a board meant for podiatry students.

 

[JaggerPlate]

Well perhaps you are content with your field remaining static until the end of time but some of us enjoy progress.

Put it this way ....

No one knows what the future holds. All you can count on is what you know now. As of now, DC, DOs, MDs, DPMs, etc, rights are what they are. Now you can campaign and push boundaries all you want, but be content with the abilities you possess with the doctoral degree, because you pay a lot of money and put in a lot of time, and you probably aren't going to see changes within your lifetime. As of now ... DCs cannot perform medicine or surgery. Their training does not prepare them to do so, and I do not believe this will change anytime soon. Ergo, even if you want this to change, want to make a difference, etc, make sure you are content with spinal manipulation in the mean time, because chances are ... that is what you'll be doing.

 

[JaggerPlate]

Second of all, who cares. DCs can practice how they will, MDs and DOs can practice how they will, and DPMs will continue to practice how they will.

How and can are very different than should and allowed.

 

[AgActual]

Put it this way ....

No one knows what the future holds. All you can count on is what you know now. As of now, DC, DOs, MDs, DPMs, etc, rights are what they are. Now you can campaign and push boundaries all you want, but be content with the abilities you possess with the doctoral degree, because you pay a lot of money and put in a lot of time, and you probably aren't going to see changes within your lifetime. As of now ... DCs cannot perform medicine or surgery. Their training does not prepare them to do so, and I do not believe this will change anytime soon. Ergo, even if you want this to change, want to make a difference, etc, make sure you are content with spinal manipulation in the mean time, because chances are ... that is what you'll be doing.

Certainly one of the more productive and insightful things said in this thread.

The only point I would potentially disagree with is the idea of chiros not doing surgery or prescribing certain meds, anytime soon. A D.C.M degree is legally recognized in the U.S.. No one has one but if a chiropractic college ever decides to make a D.C.M program, chiropractors would be able to preform minor surgery and prescribe pain medication and muscle relaxants. Certainly hypothetical and not the same thing as having a DC or within the scope of present day chiropractic but it isn't inconceivable that you and I might someday see a few chiropractors with a scope that includes meds and surgery.

And just to head off another debate, I think the D.C.M. concept is unnecessary, since there probably isn't a shortage of qualified people to do back surgery or to prescribe pain killers. Just pointing out that an expanded role for chiropractors could very well happen in the coming decades, whether necessary or not.

 

[Shasan546]

wow this thread is filled with so much bs... lol. I see no reason for the need for DCs to become more like "real" doctors. One of the main reasons is b.c unlike PODs you guys don't have a niche, plain and simple. End of discussion.

There would be no demand for DCs in primary care. NPs are more trained than you guys. Our need for Primary care does not mean we should license up the DCs. The solution is to lure people into primary care through salary adjustments and/or incentives. And/or increase DO/MD seats.

It seems like this thread is all about DCs who now realizing they want to do more than practice their usual BS. Maybe you guys should have applied to MD/DO school. Having regrets? and like jagger said i highly doubt DCs will ever be able to expand their rights.

 

[Busdriver321]

Agreed, except the Student Doctor Network has stated that they don't feel that chiropractic is a legitimate health care field or something to that effect, so we don't' get our own board. Indeed it is a wonderful thing for members of different health care fields to come together and learn from each other, have spirited discussions and debates, etc. However, the general consensus at the SDN is that DCs should be left out.

And that is why we are stuck having a chiropractic discussion in a board meant for podiatry students.

Then do something about it and start your own DC Student Web site where you can include this chat. This discussion has gone way off topic and should no longer be included in the Podiatry Student Area, regardless of what student doctor thinks or whether you have another forum.

 

[JaggerPlate]

Certainly one of the more productive and insightful things said in this thread.

The only point I would potentially disagree with is the idea of chiros not doing surgery or prescribing certain meds, anytime soon. A D.C.M degree is legally recognized in the U.S.. No one has one but if a chiropractic college ever decides to make a D.C.M program, chiropractors would be able to preform minor surgery and prescribe pain medication and muscle relaxants. Certainly hypothetical and not the same thing as having a DC or within the scope of present day chiropractic but it isn't inconceivable that you and I might someday see a few chiropractors with a scope that includes meds and surgery.

And just to head off another debate, I think the D.C.M. concept is unnecessary, since there probably isn't a shortage of qualified people to do back surgery or to prescribe pain killers. Just pointing out that an expanded role for chiropractors could very well happen in the coming decades, whether necessary or not.

From what I can tell, the DCM concept has been tried in the states, and didn't work:

http://www.chiroweb.com/mpacms/dc/article.php?id=41395

My guess is that it may be 'legal' to open a DCM school, but I don't know what states will recognize the license and allow a DCM to practice anything other than chiropractic adjustments. It's kind of like the Anesthetic Assistant degree. It's a new program, only open in a few states, and only recognized in a few states. The degree is legal, no doubt, but that doesn't mean states that don't recognize the degree will give you any practice rights. My guess is that since this was tried in 94 and didn't come to fruition, they ran into too many legal issues and it just wasn't feasible.

 

[AgActual]

From what I can tell, the DCM concept has been tried in the states, and didn't work:

http://www.chiroweb.com/mpacms/dc/article.php?id=41395

My guess is that it may be 'legal' to open a DCM school, but I don't know what states will recognize the license and allow a DCM to practice anything other than chiropractic adjustments. It's kind of like the Anesthetic Assistant degree. It's a new program, only open in a few states, and only recognized in a few states. The degree is legal, no doubt, but that doesn't mean states that don't recognize the degree will give you any practice rights. My guess is that since this was tried in 94 and didn't come to fruition, they ran into too many legal issues and it just wasn't feasible.

I suppose the only way we would ever see D.C.M.s would be if the ACA and the other politically influential chiro groups got behind it. But since those groups don't even like the idea of training chiropractors to recommend OTC pain medication, I doubt they would be too keen on lobbying for precription rights and chiroproactors preforming surgery. I guess being recogized by the Education Department would only be one hurdle cleared out of a thousand. Then again, it probably doesn't matter.

 

[Cowy1]

.Links? The "vast, vast majority" is a lot. 80%? 90%? More? Certainly you would have sources which show that a vast, vast majority believe in biotheism, homeopathy, or are intentionally ripping off patients? You wouldn't just claim this for no reason, right? I'm sorry; you are running circles around my dumb chiropractor mind. Also, you spelled "dysfunction" wrong. .

Palmer's website: http://www.palmer.edu/prospective2.aspx?id=74
"Correction of subluxations" and the invoke the awe-inspiring power of "Innate Intelligence"

Logan's website: http://www.logan.edu/SubPages.aspx?pID=16&mhID=261&shID=19&splpID=1
Subluxation etc. More woo but in a slightly nice package.

Life "University's" website: http://www.life.edu/OurMission
Subluxation (VSC), openly espouses vitalism. Pure, pure quackery.

National's webiste (supposedly "evidence-based"): http://www.nuhs.edu/show.asp?durki=43
Presents homeopathy, meridian therapy and other nonsense as legitimate academic pursuits. "Facilitates the inherent potential of the human organism to develop and maintain a state of self-regulation" = same woo in a slightly nicer package.

For a more inclusive link (but slightly dated) try http://www.chirobase.org/03Edu/webclaims.html.

I do remember reading somewhere that upwards of 85-90% of chiropractors believe that the invisible subluxation is a "legitimate health concern". The majority (if not all) chiro schools teach nonsense and the majority of chiropractors believe it.

Check out Maximized Living or any other number of practice management cults if you would like; they apparently have student groups at multiple chiropractic schools.

 

[AgActual]

Palmer's website: http://www.palmer.edu/prospective2.aspx?id=74
"Correction of subluxations" and the invoke the awe-inspiring power of "Innate Intelligence"

Logan's website: http://www.logan.edu/SubPages.aspx?pID=16&mhID=261&shID=19&splpID=1
Subluxation etc. More woo but in a slightly nice package.

Life "University's" website: http://www.life.edu/OurMission
Subluxation (VSC), openly espouses vitalism. Pure, pure quackery.

National's webiste (supposedly "evidence-based"): http://www.nuhs.edu/show.asp?durki=43
Presents homeopathy, meridian therapy and other nonsense as legitimate academic pursuits. "Facilitates the inherent potential of the human organism to develop and maintain a state of self-regulation" = same woo in a slightly nicer package.

For a more inclusive link (but slightly dated) try http://www.chirobase.org/03Edu/webclaims.html.

I do remember reading somewhere that upwards of 85-90% of chiropractors believe that the invisible subluxation is a "legitimate health concern". The majority (if not all) chiro schools teach nonsense and the majority of chiropractors believe it.

Check out Maximized Living or any other number of practice management cults if you would like; they apparently have student groups at multiple chiropractic schools.

Well no one is disputing that a majority of chiropractors still believe in subluxations. The newest figure that I saw, which was from about 10 years, pegged the number around 75%. Just because the vertebral subluxation started out as a quasi-religious concept doesn't mean that is how most chiropractors view it today. A lot has changed in the last 110 years. I am not sure if it is much better that is has become a pseduo-scientific concept as opposed to some sort of religious one but from what I can tell, most don't chiropractors don't think they are doing God's work by supposedly correcting subluxations. And just because most chiropractic schools still teach about subluxations doesn't mean that most are still teaching it in a religious context.

Additionally, I am not sure how chiropractic schools (the non-subluxtion based ones) stating that the body has natural, recuperative abilities is "woo". Some of these colleges have moved beyond the subluxation stuff and are more interested in preventative health care, which might be what National and Logan are saying. To me those websites just sound like nice little selling points, such as saying that a college has "diversity" or a "beautiful campus", rather than deeply ingrained institutional philosophy. But you would have to talk to the people who wrote it to figure out what they were trying to say.

Overall, none of this really proves that a vast majority believe in biotheism or homeopathy. Certainly the field has problems but I can't agree with the idea that most chiropractors are biotheistic zealots/con artists. We could sit around all day and point out legitimate concerns about chiropractic but just throwing out the most extreme accusations that one can think of is hardly productive or objective.

 

[Cowy1]

Nothing I wrote was extreme; these things are openly flaunted on chiropractic school websites. You admit the schools teach kookery to their students yet are saying the majority of students don't believe it 🙄?Besides, what are they learning then if they are spending time learning fairy tales? Every class that teaches you about homeopathy, subluxation or some other silly thing takes away from your knowledge of (real) medicine.

Just like you said, most chiropractors believe in subluxations, a FICTIONAL lesion. The chiropractor's purpose is to remove subluxation but since that is BS, what are you left with? Some PT modalities that a PT can do better? Spinal manipulation that kinda works for LBP but isn't any better than a $5 bottle of acetaminophen?

Adjusting a lesion (subluxation) to somehow enleash a natural healing ability (Innate) is pure baloney. Cracking backs plays no part in preventative care besides the fact that chiropractors know (or can do) little about preventative medicine.

Frankly, look at the number of chiropractors who oppose vaccination (a majority and something still taught in your schools) and then say with straight face that chiropractors are qualified to practice preventative medicine.

 

[AgActual]

Nothing I wrote was extreme

I disagree. In fact you have backtracked a bit. You went from nearly all chiropractors believe in biotheism, use homeopathy, and intentionally scam patients, to one chiropractic school's website mentions innate intelligence, some schools have a course in homeopathy, and shady practice building organizations exist. Hardly the same thing as your original claim.

You admit the schools teach kookery to their students yet are saying the majority of students don't believe it

Sure. When I was in the clinical psychology program, every student was eventually taught psychodynamic therapy techniques, which are completely unscientific and ineffective, and everyone was taught to use the DSM-IV's diagnostic criteria for assessment. That is pretty much taught across the board, at every psychology school. Yet almost no psychologists use psychodynamic therapy and the DSM is seen as largely useless by doctors and students alike. So psychology students are taught things that are highly problematic and have no science behind them, yet many are able to realize this. If we see this type of thing play out in other fields then it isn't inconceivable that chiropractic students would be able to see beyond things like homeopathy.

I don't know about you but I certainly don't believe everything I have been taught in college. Maybe if you spent some time at a chiropractic college, you would find that the students aren't mindless robots.

Just like you said, most chiropractors believe in subluxations, a FICTIONAL lesion

Sure, the subluxation appears to be ficitional but if you think that you aren't being taught things at your medical school that are one day going to be disproved or abandoned, then you might want to get some books on the history of medicine.

Adjusting a lesion (subluxation) to somehow enleash a natural healing ability (Innate) is pure baloney

Perhaps we should go back through this thread and count how many times I have said the exact same thing.

Every class that teaches you about homeopathy, subluxation or some other silly thing takes away from your knowledge of (real) medicine.

Agreed. I think it would be far better to take another physical therapy course or another course in orthopedics, instead of taking the class on homeopathy. However, lets put this into a proper perspective. The homeopathy stuff at my school is about half of one course. There are 70 courses and labs in the DC program at my school and part of one deals in homeopathy. A waste of 6 or so weeks, sure, but hardly a major element within the training. Now I haven't taken all of the courses yet, if i find any more problems I will be glad to share them with you but at this point, I don't see much of an issues with rampid pseudo-scientific nonsense. Find the course list and descriptions for some of these schools. Maybe it will put your mind at ease. You may find that virtually of the courses are ones in anatomy, microbiology, physical therapy, radiology, orthopedics, and manipulation techniques. Oh the horror!

Frankly, look at the number of chiropractors who oppose vaccination (a majority and something still taught in your schools)

You might need to find a link to show this because I don't think that a majority of chiropractors and all of the chiro schools preach anti-vaccination. In fact, I think my school last fall had links on the website on how to get the H1N1 shot.

 

[AgActual]

Then do something about it and start your own DC Student Web site where you can include this chat.

Yes, that is the rational solution. Or you could just ignore this thread. Whatever works for you.

 

[AgActual]

There would be no demand for DCs in primary care.

I often find it is necessary to read a thread before commenting. If you had, you might have found that I said the exact same thing about 800,000 times already. But if it makes you feel better. I DON'T THINK DC'S SHOULD BE PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIANS! Did you feel that one?

It seems like this thread is all about DCs who now realizing they want to do more than practice their usual BS.

Yup, because you need to agree with every single aspect of a field, including everything ever taught in its history, before you can get into it.

 

[air bud]

Dude. If you want to be a revolutionary figure within chiro, then go ahead and fight for all the stuff you are talking about. Otherwise, do what 99 percent of the people on here think you should do: Drop out now and go to med school.

 

[streetsweeper]

Not necessary to bash the chiro profession. OP, just go to DO or POD school dude.

 

[jonwill]

I don't know how or when this got so far off track but it has basically come down to chiro vs pre-med/med students. I have no idea where I'd move it but it has run its course. Let's put this one to bed.