The Council on Chiropractic Education (CCE) recently proposed revisions to their Standards on Accreditation. While the American Chiropractic Association fully endorses the proposed revisions, other medically oriented groups within chiropractic have urged the CCE to leave in extensive language describing chiropractic as the practice of primary care, include language regarding pharmacology, and to remove the meta-competency dealing with adjustment. 

The CCE contends that they have dealt with the issue of primary care by removing the entire Preface where this was discussed. Unfortunately, as the Foundation points out in their letter they are still pretending that chiropractors are primary care providers by keeping that language in the Forward.

The Foundation noted: 

Much has already been made of this issue and the fact that many within chiropractic confuse primary care with portal of entry status and we are in agreement with the CCE that the term “primary care” in any of its derivations should be removed from the Standards. We are also supportive of the statement in the Forward: 

“The CCE does not define or support any specific philosophy regarding the principles and practice of chiropractic, nor do the CCE Standards support or accommodate any specific philosophical or political position. The Standards do not establish the scope of chiropractic practice.” 

The problem is that in the very next paragraph the CCE does exactly that by stating: 

“Accreditation requirements focus on student learning outcomes that prepare DCP graduates to serve as competent, caring, patient-centered and ethical primary health care professionals.” 

Perhaps this was an oversight, but if it is not corrected and removed then it obviously negates the preceeding paragraph and renders it a contradiction.  If the CCE were sincere in its efforts to divorce itself from philosophical issues regarding the practice of chiropractic then it would simply replace “primary health care professionals” with “portal of entry providers”. 

In addition to this the Foundation stressed the inherent problems with punctuation in regards to the new Meta-Competency 7 on Adjustment/Manipulation as follows: 

We appreciate CCE’s efforts to include a Meta-Competency regarding the Raison D'être of the chiropractic profession (the adjustment). However, the rationale for including “manipulation” using a “/” is flawed. The notion put forth by CCE that the forward slash can be interpreted as “and” and “or” and “and or” is proof positive that it should not be used in this context. It is frowned upon in legal writing because it is inherently ambiguous. If you mean 'and,' write and. If you mean 'or,' write or. This is a simple correction.  If it is left as is then this is simply another indication that the CCE wishes to ignore facts to pursue an agenda. 

There has been a concerted effort within the Chiropractic Cartel to equate a specific chiropractic adjustment to reduce or correct vertebral subluxation with spinal manipulative therapy. This has reared its ugly head in politics and research where these terms are used interchangeably and as synonyms – which of course they are not and makes the entire profession look ignorant.

CLICK HERE for the Complete Response to the CCE

Interested parties can still submit their comments to the CCE through the following link: 

http://www.cce-usa.org/Call_for_Comments.html