The autopsy tells us a great deal. It also demonstrated on the autopsy that there were a number of bruises, as we talked about early on in this discussion, the possibility of a fall being part of this, so there's still lots of information to be learned in this case. We still don't know anything about what the chiropractor did or didn't do involved in this case. It's evolving, and it will continue to evolve, but the best, best ammunition that the individual chiropractor has is the ability to be non-defensive, to be factual, to be honest, to be candid, to rely on the literature, and to help the patient make an informed choice about their healthcare and their decisions and not be in a position to pressure people in any direction one way or the other. It was the advice I think that we've offered consistently over time, and it continues to be the best advice I think we can present to you today. Thank you. Some of the doctors will utilize the technique that they use as an excuse to not need an informed consent, and I've got to tell you, it's not about technique. We had one incident last week where a chiropractor is now getting sued 362 days ... I'm sorry. Three days before the statute of limitations is running out, a lawsuit was just filed, claiming that the chiropractor caused dissection leading to stroke. There's only one problem. In this particular case, the chiropractor did not adjust their neck. They simply came in for low back pain, only adjusted the point of pain, and one month later or more ... I think it was a little over a month ... they wound up with a stroke, but they had been to a chiropractor and they're suing the chiropractor. Patients, some of them, as you said before, may not want to get their neck adjusted, and it's a temporary, at least temporary measure, while all this hype is out there. I totally agree with you in terms of, hey, do what you think is right, and at the same time, work with the patients understanding what's happening from a societal point of view, and let things calm down and utilize the time with the patient for further and further education so that they can make a more informed choice that would be in their best interest as well. I'm sorry. I wanted it to come back to the point that you had made about being, I don't need to worry about informed consent because I used this technique or that technique. This isn't about what happens in your office. This is about what walks through the door. There's all sorts of references in the literature to patients. There's one that I particularly use from time to time. A patient was asked to stand on one foot during an examination, and in the process of standing on the foot they dissected. This was a physical therapist and particularly in that case, but the patient was never touched in a clinical care environment or to provide care to the patient. They were being evaluated. We've got to get this out of our head that this a technique mitigated, technique related thing, Gonstead is worse than Diversified or Diversified's worse than Activator and Activator's worse than NUCCA or whatever. That's crazy talk. What we need to get in our heads is that this is about what walks I guess ... Go ahead.
Dr. Hoffman:
Dr. Clum:
Made with FlippingBook HTML5