Tips for Choosing a Reputable Chiropractor (and Reducing the Risk of Stroke)

Guidelines for Selecting a Chiropractor

The single biggest risk of chiropractic care is the risk of stroke resulting from aggressive neck manipulation. Should you decide to visit a chiropractor, the following guidelines will hopefully assist you in selecting a competent, responsible healthcare provider.

Avoid

1. Chiropractors who advertise excessively or who offer “free” or discounted exams or treatments.

2. Chiropractors who claim chiropractic is a “miracle” or can offer “miraculous results”.

3. Chiropractors who want you to sign a contract for long term care.

4. Chiropractors who insist that they are primary care doctors or suggest that MD’s are simply

against chiropractors because chiropractic treatment is somehow better than medicine.

5. Chiropractors who advise you not to have your children immunized.

6. Chiropractors who want you to return even if no progress has occurred after two weeks and/or a half dozen visits.

7. Chiropractors who use scare tactics to solicit for business, such as preaching that “vertebral subluxations are silent killers” and that your whole family needs to be checked for subluxations.

8. Chiropractors who take full spine or repeated x-rays.

9. Chiropractors who promise to prevent disease through regular check-ups and manipulations.

10. Chiropractors who claim their treatment will cure some disease, improve immune functions or benefit organ systems.

11. Chiropractors who do not obtain your informed consent and warn you about the possibility of having a stroke after manipulation or claim that the risk is so rare it doesn’t matter. (Complete informed consent includes not only written consent but also a discussion regarding all risks & benefits to any and all chiropractic procedures.)
Unfortunately, in some states such as Georgia, chiropractors are not legally required to obtain the informed consent of their patients or explain the risks inherent with neck manipulation. Regardless of the legal requirements, ethical and honest chiropractors should always explain the risks to their patients before undertaking any procedure.

12. Chiropractors who offer to sell you expensive nutritional supplements or other remedies, which they profit from.

13. Chiropractors who believe spinal manipulation is treatment for disease, infection or as a method of preventing ill health. (Or if a chiropractor refers to himself as a “straight” chiropractor.)

Seek

1. Chiropractors who take a full medical history before starting treatment.

2. Chiropractors who recommend that a medical facility take x-rays and orders them to rule out fractures or gross pathology as indicated by their case history. In some cases an MRI might be warranted to eliminate the possibility that the head or neck pain you are experiencing might be the result of something very serious, like a torn artery.

3. Chiropractors who discuss at length all risks of chiropractic manipulation as well as any benefits. (Risk vs. Benefit)

4. Chiropractors who clearly establish the type of treatment he is going to perform, its expected outcome, how long it will last and how much it will cost.

5. Chiropractors who will refer you to a medical doctor if you or close family members have medical histories that indicate a thorough medical exam is necessary before any chiropractic treatment.

6. Chiropractors who emphasize the importance of wellness by means of a balanced diet, regular exercise, better posture, minimizing stress etc.

7. Chiropractors who are willing to explain their training and treatment philosophy, bearing in mind that chiropractic is generally considered effective only for temporary back and joint pain. (Since chiropractors adhere to many different philosophies, if you find that their treatment philosophy is something that sounds odd or is something that you instinctively don’t feel right about, leave immediately.)

8. Chiropractors who limit their practice to conservative treatment of musculoskeletal problems.

Important:

Patients should never be afraid to ask their family medical doctor for the names of chiropractors who fit the above descriptions and appear to be competent and trustworthy.

Many states offer online verification of chiropractor’s current license status, malpractice history, education and disciplinary actions. Obtaining this information is strongly recommended before seeing any and all new healthcare providers.

Lloyd N. Bell is a Georgia personal injury lawyer who represents people who have suffered catastrophic personal injury, including victims of chiropractic malpractice. This blog is meant for informational purposes and to raise community awareness of avoidable safety risks. To learn more about my practice, please visit www.BellandMulholland.com.

Conservative Scholar Opposes Federal Tort "Reform" Efforts

Earthquake: GOP's Favorite Constitutional Scholar Opposes Federal Tort Reform Bills

By Andrew Cochran on May 22, 2011 5:46 PM| 0 Comments

Prof. Randy Barnett of Georgetown University Law Center is arguably the GOP's favorite Constitutional scholar. He co-authored an amicus brief for the National Federation of Independent Business in the 11th Circuit review of the State of Florida's anti-ObamaCare case; he has written often about and testified to the unconstitutionality of ObamaCare before the House Judiciary Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee; and he's among the leading experts on the original intent of the Founding Fathers' writings, including the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Just last week, he appeared with Congressional Republicans to announce the introduction of the Repeal Amendment, which would allow states to repeal federal laws under certain conditions.

So it's stunning that Prof. Barnett has written two pieces today on the unconstitutionality of any federally enacted tort reform, beginning withH.R. 5, the Republican-sponsored "HEALTH Act," which would severely limit all health care-related lawsuits. In an op-ed appearing in the Sunday edition of the Washington Examiner, Prof. Barnett wrote:

Congress is now considering the "Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2011." This bill alters state medical malpractice rules by, for example, placing caps on noneconomic damages. But tort law -- the body of rules by which persons seek damages for injuries to their person and property -- has always been regulated by states, not the federal government. Tort law is at the heart of what is called the "police power" of states... Indeed, if Congress now can regulate tort law, which has always been at the core of state powers, then Congress, and not the states, has a general police power. This issue concerns constitutional principle, not policy: the fundamental principle that Congress has only limited and enumerated powers, and that Congress should stay within these limits. Constitutional law professors have long cynically ridiculed a "fair-weather federalism" that is abandoned whenever it is inconvenient to someone's policy preferences. If House Republicans ignore their Pledge to America to assess the Constitution themselves, and invade the powers "reserved to the states" as affirmed by the Tenth Amendment, they will prove my colleagues right.

And in a piece on his blog hosted on the pages of the "Volokh Conspiracy," he added to his objections as follows:

When I first heard that the House was planning on pursuing tort reform, I was skeptical that there was a constitutional basis for this effort at the federal level, but thought maybe there is some legitimate federal power that, if cleverly deployed, could influence tort law at the state level. So I was disappointed when I read the law firm report on which the sponsors of the bill relied for 'constitutional authority.' The report justified the bill under the 'substantial effects doctrine.' Not only does this post-New Deal doctrine extend Congress's power well beyond the regulation of interstate commerce, it does so, not by independently determining whether the activity being regulated actually has a substantial affect on interstate commerce, but instead on whether Congress had a 'rational basis' for believing that it did. Thus does the Court defer to Congress, while the House Republicans -- just like Congressional Democrats -- defer to the Court's assessment of constitutionality. This 'double deference' is one of the secret (to the general public) tricks by which the branches of the federal government can claim to be adhering to the Constitution while actually ignoring it. It is one of the ways important passages of the Constitution's text became 'lost.'

But the 'findings' of the bill are even worse:

"EFFECT ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE"

"Congress finds that the health care and insurance industries are industries affecting interstate commerce and the health care liability litigation systems existing throughout the United States are activities that affect interstate commerce by contributing to the high costs of health care and premiums for health care liability insurance purchased by health care system providers."

These 'findings' are based on the effects on interstate commerce, not only of the 'health care and insurance industries,' but also of 'health care liability litigation systems throughout the United States' -- that is, on the affects on interstate commerce of state courts themselves! So Congress has the power to regulate tort law because state courts affect interstate commerce. By this principle, Congress has a general police power over any matter not adjudicated by state common law courts.

Prof. Barnett's logic is irrefutable, if you believe in restoring the original intent of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. If, instead, you adhere to the position that the post-Wickard line of Supreme Court decisions justifies H.R. 5, then... get ready for ObamaCare.

This is an intellectual earthquake. Prof. Barnett's two pieces and the posts and letter by Constitutional conservative Rob Natelson of the Independence Institute trump the theories behind business community's long war to pre-empt all state laws and courts and deprive us of our Constitutional rights. Now the battle in Congress is fully joined. It's the Founding Fathers vs. theU.S. Chamber. It's the original intent of the Constitution and Bill of Rights to limit Uncle Sam's power vs. new judge-made doctrines expanding Uncle Sam's power. It's the moral authority of principle and conscience vs. the naked power of business-side PAC dollars and scores of lobbyists. If GOPCongressmen and Senators vote their conscience, it'll be no contest. Call your Congressman and tell him to save the Constitution and Bill of Rights by opposing H.R. 5.

Bell & Mulholland, LLC is a personal injury trial firm representing people who have suffered serious injury or wrongful death due to negligence. Please visit us at www.bellandmulholland.com.