know I can get this person well, I know I can get ... " Come on. Those days are long over. They're just gone. Diagnosis, what's the diagnosis? Can I help you? What is the treatment plan, then render care. The days of having someone on the hood of your car at the beach, laying them down and adjusCng every stranger that walks by, preMy cool when you're first out of school and you haven't hurt anybody. But over Cme ... and listen, I am guilty of everything that I am communicaCng with you right now. I've gone the gamut of closing my eyes and being the dogmaCst and knowing I can help them get well. But when I consult, and Bill consults doctors as we do in 47 states, and we see things like tumors, and osteomyeliCs and spinal cord issues, and my god, thank god I didn't adjust this person. They'd be crippled for the rest of their life. When you hurt that one person, even if it's one of 10,000, your license is done. That person's life is over. Doctor, do no harm. Diagnosis- Well, Mark, I agree and that's part of the reason that we have these shows. Because we're concerned about making sure we reduce the risk for our doctors. So, let me just get in to your arCcle for a minute. Because in the beginning of the arCcle, you state that the ACA is opining and sehng precedent that can be used against individual pracCConers or even the enCre profession. Granted, the underlying tone is to prevent unnecessary exposure to ionizing radiaCon, but at what cost to paCent care? I mean, let's talk about this in terms of the cost to paCent care based on these guidelines. Well, the dogma and the rhetoric is very interesCng because none of this discussion ... and I don't want to sit here and sound like, you know, my philosophical posiCon is allopathic or [ergomeCc 00:13:37]. In fact, the longer that I have [inaudible 00:13:40] ... specialty of medical doctors, the more focused I've become on chiropracCc. And the rhetoric that's coming out, as far as ionizing radiaCon is that number one, and again it's rhetoric, that radiaCon is cumulaCve. That as I take more and more x-rays, I'm going to get more and more ... I'm going to get hurt more, right? It's going to cause harm. That discussion is not even present at anywhere in medical specialty, at any level. It's certainly not discussed at that level in the radiology, the neuroradiology community. And in fact, there's only one main study that had any sort of populaCon based view, and that was all the way back to the first bomb drop in Hiroshima. And that's the populaCon that we're sCll working off of. There hasn't been any modernized influence. So to lead with something that's decepCve, such as well, we're hurCng people by taking an x-ray, is almost really a nonstarter, because we seem to be the profession that's the most concerned about that. And no other ones are, at least in my experience, I don't know if that's what you experience too, Mark. Yeah, as a maMer of fact, the radiologists and urologists, when they so fluoro exams on a paCent, don't even want to let imprints anymore. Because there is zero evidence, there has never been ... for diagnosCc imaging, there's just no evidence. There was scant evidence in one remote case that was recorded Bill, why don't you handle the ionizing radiaCon dogma.
Dr. Hoffman:
Dr. Studin:
Dr. Owens:
Dr. Studin:
Chiropractor Malpractice Insurance - ACA X-ray Guidelines Part 2 Dr. M...
Page ! of ! 4 11
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker