United Chiropractic Association Declines BCA's Urge to Merge
In a response to the British Chiropractors Association's letter from Matthew Bennett written to the Presidents of the McTimoney Chiropractic Association, United Chiropractic Association and the Scottish Chiropractic Association, urging the three other presidents to form a “single association for the good of the profession” the United Chiropractic Association issued a letter to the BCA.
In his letter, Kevin Proudman, President of the United Chiropractic Association, calls Bennett's letter "condescending", "arrogant" and refers to it as a "marketing stunt" to gain membership for the BCA.
Proudman refers to the Alliance of UK Chiropractors that was established six years ago and reminds Bennett of the invitation for the BCA to join with them. Among other reasons, Bennett has refused to have the BCA join based on the Alliance's support for the clinical necessity of radiographs in determining the biomechanical components of vertebral subluxation.
Bennett suggests on his own website that routine x-rays of the spine for such purposes are outside the standard of care.
The following is the full text of the letter.
Dear Matthew Bennett,
I have never posted on these forums before. I know that they do provide a platform for people to express their opinions but I have felt it inappropriate for me to opine on important discussions. There is a tendency for things to become misinterpreted and for opinions to replace facts. Nevertheless I feel impelled to make comment on the letter which you have published.
The tone of the letter and the content seem to me very condescending. The action of publishing it on the Internet, and the timing as registrants decide which Association they might join, gives it the air of a desperate marketing stunt. The idea that other chiropractors in other associations do not understand or care about the unity of the profession is preposterous. The idea that they can prove that they "cherish" the future of the profession by responding to your letter by the start of business on Monday morning is frankly arrogant in the extreme.
I can only suppose that when you hear no response on Monday morning you will feel able to announce to the world that you held out the hand of friendship and it was rejected. You indicate that the ECCE accreditation somehow legitimises the chiropractic school in Oxford for the BCA. The GCC and the other UK associations have recognised that school and its graduates for many years. The only group in the UK who refused to acknowledge the GCC accreditation of the McTimoney College and its graduates was the BCA.
I am glad to see that you have decided to base relationships in the future on "tolerance and understanding". It is a pity that these qualities were not evident in the past. Certainly we do face challenges, and certainly unity is important. You will remember our commitment to unity Matthew, because you attended the very first UCA Chiropractic Essentials seminar held in 2000 which was titled "Unity in Diversity".
The Alliance of UK Chiropractors was established six years ago and works very well. It may in the future lead us back to being one Association. The reason given by the BCA for not being involved (ICA guidelines) is a flimsy smokescreen. The idea that somehow almost 1500 of your colleagues are breaking UK Xray legislation and GCC regulations because of their membership of the AUKC is ridiculous. The ICA guidelines were chosen because they are internationally recognised and gave us a working framework.
The invitation remains for the BCA to join an organisation which has advanced chiropractic in the UK for the past six years and represents around half of the chiropractors in the UK. The UCA of which I'm proud to be president, is, and always was a membership organisation. The BCA on the other hand, in my experience as a chiropractor in the UK for the past 40 years, has been predominantly a political organisation funded by members. It pains me to say this Matthew because I expected more from you, but your letter and its delivery fits very well with the divisive political machinations carried on by many of your predecessors.