chiropracters using the title "Dr"

tallaght01

I'll have a read of your colic article later. I'll be interested in reading how chiropracters doagnosed colic in the firt place. One of the problems in trialling colic treatment is that is that paediatricians can't define colic. There are no diagnostic criteria for it. What one of us may diagnose as colic, another may not. We even argue about what it actually is, and even if it exists.

Your blood pressure treatment trial only has 50 patients in it!!!!! It was published a year ago, so i look forward to the proper follow up trial.

I say so many things about yor last post, but as you say you're finished posting on the forum then there's no point, I guess.

I guess that means there's no chance of getting a reference to that spine article you talked about earlier then?

2Scoops

N8 wrote: »

The body representing the medical profession in the US, the AMA, was found guilty of conspiring to destroy the profession of chiropractic, having ‘actively undermined its educational establishments, concealed evidence of its usefulness, subverted governmental inquiries into its efficacy, engaged in massive misinformation to discredit and de-stabilise the chiropractic profession and engaged in numerous other activities…’ added to this was an organised national boycott of doctors of chiropractic by medical doctors and hospitals and an ‘ethics’ ban on interprofessional co-operation.

The issue with the AMA has been largely resolved - the court case(s) you are referring to happened in the 1980s/90s and now the AMA has accepted the legitimacy of appropriate chiropractic consultation.

N8 wrote: »

Throughout the thread various claims were made and accepted without any evidence or reference. This included:

“Most chiropractors in Ireland” were “charlatans” and “spoofers.”

.....

Added to this it appears anyone is allowed ridicule the chiropractic profession here and despite that the fact that one Stephen Barrat, who has ties to the aforementioned AMA, has been found to be libellous, to have misrepresented himself and to have perjured himself in court, I am told that his anecdotal reports against chiropractic should not be discounted.

I made the charlatan comment and I withdraw it because it was an unfounded assumption on my part. I hope I've come across as supportive of chiropractics, because I am - with the proviso that it is provided by qualified people. There are more chiropractic practitioners in Ireland than are registered with the CAI, who required the appropriate qualifications of their members. There is no legislation to stop people calling themselves chiropractors without having undergone the training and that's who the charlatan tag was directed at.

Also, your dislike of Stephen Barrett, which extends to a repeated, pejorative misspelling his name , has lead you to be quite biased against him, and your posts about him, although technically correct, have been misleading. His court cases are largely libel suits against his detractors who have called him names. His 'anecdotal' evidence against some, possibly not qualified chiropractors consists of several documented case reports. Why should these be ignored because you don't like Barrett? Also, Barrett works closely with real chiropractors, one of which co-edits his site, and they support him. I don't know what your problem with him is.

hunnymonster

Just another opinion. I think it is very misleading for the public for a chiropractor to use the title Dr. In some senses even a chiropractor with a Ph.D. should be Dr Quack Ph.D. to make it clear they do not also have a medical doctors qualification.

Someone made the point early on that there is the argument that a medicine graduate (Mb, BCh, BAO) shouldn't use Dr as a title but I agree with their further point that in a health setting the title does tell the patient something about the competencies of the health professional. I just wish it was a different title than Dr (your lord highness perhaps?) because as a phd
1. I constantly get asked to look at people's ingrown toenails, people can't seem to understand that a doctor doesn't necessarily mean a medical dr.
2. I am an expert in my field, noone in the world knows more about my small specialised area than I do, it's compleletely different to your average medical graduate who knows an awful lot about an awful lot of things but is not an expert in any of them, yet sometimes it feels that the public think less highly of my phd (8 years study) than the MB, BCh, BAO (5-6 years study). I know the two cannot be equated on any level but it still irks me slightly. Having said that, at least a medical graduate is part of an ongoing programme of study and learning (intern, sho, R, spR.......) when someone with a 3-4 year BSc starts calling themselves Dr then I give up.:rolleyes:

tallaght01

Slightly off topic hunnymonster...but it seems a shame to have a world expert on a topic (however narrow it is) on the forum, without hearing about it

So why don't you start a thread, telling us all. Woud be good to get the perspective of a scientist in here. There's quite a few medical professionals posting, but it's a biology AND medicine forum.

So, give us the rundown. But keep it simple for those of us who are a bit slower

hunnymonster

a sub area of quantum physics. People usually switch off after I ask them if the cat is dead or alive (dead cats are as close to biology as I get!)