The chiropractic profession originated at a time when the healing arts were comprised of a medley of capricious theories, practitioners, and practices. Early chiropractors claimed to treat and cure a wide spectrum of ailments; however, in this era, the diagnosis and treatment of disease was, by definition, the practice of medicine or osteopathy. To avoid conflict with the law and differentiate chiropractic from medical practice, the profession abandoned medical terminology and chiropractic as a disease-specific intervention in favor of a distinct lexicon and a doctrine of chiropractic as a non-'therapeutic' philosophy, science, and art. This allowed for the possibility that analysis, detection, and correction of the chiropractic lesion could indirectly cure or improve a wide range of clinical conditions--both musculoskeletal and organic (Type O)--without infringing upon the practice of licensed healthcare providers.
On the surface, improvement or cure of organic disorders by manual treatment methods seems to be "...a fantastic and totally unacceptable claim." Is improvement or cure by manual treatment methods of non-musculoskeletal conditions possible? Or are such notions implausible and unlikely? The evolution of the profession's claims, management, clinical success, or failure with Type O disorders is generally discussed in the historical context of the healing arts and scientific evidence.
This abstract is reproduced with the permission of the publisher; full text is available by subscription.