We have transitioned out of anatomy into physiology-based coursework. I am happy for this because anatomy is not my strong point. The courses include, neurophysiology (taught very well by Dr. Gillette), physiology (taught by Dr. Irving - a new physiology professor), microbiology/immunology/public health (taught by Dr. Burnham), pathology (taught by the amazing professor Dr. Rouhani a naturopathic doctor), radiographic anatomy (taught by Dr. Hoffman), and 5 others associated with clinical topics, evidence based practice, adjustive skills and soft tissue therapies. All in all, the curriculum looks challenging and refreshing to be launching into clinically oriented coursework.
The first year was quite hard with all the demands on our time. They kept us really busy rushing around campus - in and out of labs and of course the infamous anatomy lab experience. Personally speaking, I am really happy anatomy lab is done! No more smelly scrubs or feelings of dread. I think the first year was hazing at it's best. In fact, I am reading a few books on this subject currently that I found in the down town library. Portland's library is quite extensive and impressive!
Now that we are heading further into our coursework, there is a new found respect that is being given to all of us by our professors. At times, when a student has a question, they are called on as "doctor". We get an ego lift from this, of course, because during the first year we were practically smacked around at the leisure of our instructors. Maybe it is because they know how hard the first year is and their respect for us has grown. If I was a betting man, I would bet on that notion.
Friday, during our clinical topics course, Dr. Bhalerao asked who was planning on using any "techniques" and which ones. The class was practically silent with only a few hands that stuck up in the crowd. Those who did say they were going to use a technique were thinking of such ones as Graston technique, a soft tissue therapy technique that is logically sound, ART which is another therapeutic technique based in science and the use of the Activator tool. I couldn't tell if he was referring to using the methodology of the technique or just the tool, I will assume he was referring to the tool only. Regardless, I have decided it isn't my job (anymore) to judge those who choose to use a pseudoscientific technique as it is their choice, not mine. Besides, I think my constant nagging about the "other side" of chiropractic is getting old, at least for me it is and may be causing more harm than good. If someone does become a proponent of a technique, I'd like to learn why it is they made this choice, if they want to share, that is.
Our soft tissue instructor got on his soap box today about banding together as a profession. He claimed the public views chiropractic weirdly because they don't understand what we do. That may be true, but I must stick to my opinion in regards to the weirdness they correlate us to falling directly on the theorist's shoulders. He also said there is a place for subluxation theory as long as it is practiced ethically. Unfortunately, ethics relies on logic and epistemology and technique systems lack in both areas. In my opinion, ethics cannot be obtained through systems that lack evidence or legitimate scientific srutinization. That is all I will say about that, for now.
I thought it was interesting how he gave reference to structure having genetic influence on function. This means mechanical stress may also have genetic repercussions, good or bad. It makes sense when thinking of scoliosis or bone spurs forming from poor joint mechanics. Manual medicine definitely has a place among the sciences. It is exciting to venture into new territory.
Thanks for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment