If you mean chiropractic treatment for back/neck problems, I’d put it in the “sometimes useful, but considerably less magical than advertised” category.
There is reasonable evidence that spinal manipulation can provide modest short-term relief for some forms of uncomplicated low-back pain, roughly comparable to other conservative treatments such as exercise or massage. It isn't particularly good evidence for the more sweeping claims sometimes made by chiropractors—that manipulating the spine can treat asthma, digestive problems, infections, blood-pressure problems, etc.
The part I'd be more cautious about is forceful neck manipulation. There is a rare but serious association with cervical artery dissection and stroke. The absolute risk appears to be very small, but given that the benefit for ordinary neck pain is modest, I don't see much reason to accept that particular risk.
For an older person, I'd favor a chiropractor who uses gentle manipulation, mobilization, stretching and exercise, rather than someone who wants to repeatedly “adjust” the spine or promises to correct some fundamental spinal misalignment.
And if you're asking because of your balance/depth-perception problems or the tingling you get when coughing, that's a rather different matter. I would not have those symptoms treated by a chiropractor without first having the underlying cause medically evaluated.
I think that criticism has a pretty substantial historical basis. Chiropractic is an unusual case because the original theory was explicitly pseudoscientific: D. D. Palmer claimed that many diseases were caused by “subluxations” of the spine interfering with an innate life force. There was no anatomical or physiological basis for that idea.
And yes, the professional credentialing system developed largely within chiropractic itself, rather than chiropractic emerging from an established medical or scientific discipline and subsequently acquiring independent validation. Chiropractors have their own colleges, accreditation mechanisms, licensing boards, terminology, and professional organizations. That doesn't automatically make everything a chiropractor does quackery, but it does make the history rather different from, say, physical therapy.
What's interesting is that chiropractic has partly retreated from its original claims while retaining much of the institutional structure. Modern evidence can support spinal manipulation as one possible treatment for certain musculoskeletal complaints, but that's a very long way from Palmer's claim that spinal adjustments could cure disease.
So I'd make one distinction from your formulation: “chiropractic contains a useful musculoskeletal technique” is defensible; “chiropractic is a legitimate medical system based on its traditional theory” isn't. The former doesn't require accepting the latter.
It's rather like discovering that an alchemist occasionally had a useful recipe for cleaning silver. It doesn't vindicate alchemy.
I was on a jury where a kid had been injured and the expert they called to testify as to his injuries was a chiropractic. The defense accepted it and didn't question him, but later in deliberation I made the point of why didn't they get a regular doctor.
Yes—that seems like a perfectly legitimate point to raise in deliberation, although I can see why the defense lawyer might have decided not to attack the witness's credentials in front of the jury.
There are really two separate questions. First, was this particular person competent to testify about the injuries? Second, why did the plaintiff choose a chiropractor rather than an MD or other conventional medical specialist? Even if the chiropractor was legally qualified as an expert, the second question could reasonably affect how much weight you gave his testimony.
And I suspect your observation had some force precisely because the defense hadn't challenged him. A juror might naturally think, “Well, apparently both lawyers agree this is an appropriate expert.” Your question punctured that assumption: If this is important medical evidence, why isn't the obvious medical expert—the treating physician, an orthopedist, a neurologist, whoever was appropriate—giving us the evidence?
Of course, there may have been an entirely mundane explanation: the chiropractor actually treated the kid, had the relevant records, was willing to testify, or was cheaper/easier to put on the stand. But if the jury wasn't given such an explanation, I think it was reasonable for you to wonder about it.
It also illustrates something lawyers know very well: “qualified to testify” and “persuasive expert” are not remotely the same thing. A witness can clear the first hurdle and still leave a juror thinking, “I'm not sure I'm buying this.”
That sounds like one of those jury experiences where the actual deliberation was remarkably uncomplicated. You weren't persuaded by the chiropractor's testimony, apparently the other jurors weren't either, and the first vote settled it.
And then the judge's little ritual: “Did you enjoy your lunch?” followed by “I accept that.” 😂 There wasn't much ceremony left after that. I particularly like the contrast between the potentially weighty business of a personal-injury trial and the decisive role played by a roomful of jurors who had just eaten excellent roast-beef sandwiches.
The interesting part is that you apparently didn't need to persuade anybody with a grand argument about chiropractic. Your question—why wasn't there a regular doctor?—was enough to make the testimony seem less convincing. Once several jurors independently had the same reservation, the case was probably in trouble.
Ah. Then the chiropractor was almost beside the point.
What you're describing is a jury that noticed the composition of the jury itself and regarded it as unfair. If everyone sitting in judgment was white while the defendant was Black, and the jurors could see that this had resulted from the selection process, that could undermine confidence in the prosecution—or plaintiff's—case before you even got to the evidence.
And there's an interesting irony: jury selection is supposed to produce an impartial jury, but an obviously skewed result can itself become something the jurors notice. Even if every individual juror is sincerely trying to be fair, being conspicuously selected as part of an all-white jury can make people uncomfortable about whether the process was fair to the defendant.
So by the time you got to deliberations, you had both a weak evidentiary case and a jury that was already rather unhappy about how it had been constituted. A defense verdict on the first vote isn't terribly surprising.
And then, after lunch, the foreperson says the verdict and the judge says, “I accept that.” Curtain. Probably one of the more consequential roast-beef lunches you've ever had.
No comments:
Post a Comment