VOCA : New Haven Chiropractor Granted Form Of Probation

Chiropractic Conflict Continues in Connecticut

February 11, 2010

Rick Green | Hartford Courant

When we last heard from them, a group of former chiropractic patients injured during a controversial neck-manipulation procedure were preparing last month for an unprecedented series of hearings before a state regulatory board.

The hearings before the state ended abruptly amid charges of favoritism and bias.

Nevertheless, the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners is now considering whether to require "informed consent" for chiropractors, mandating that they inform patients of the small risk of a stroke that has been linked to neck manipulation.

Supporters of informed consent have little hope that the chiropractic board will do the right thing here. It's likely that their next move will be to file a lawsuit to try to force a court-ordered change.

It's astonishing that something so simple has been portrayed as so controversial.

"The State Board of Chiropractic Examiners needs to be concerned about the perception that it is catering to the industry,'' Jay Malcynsky, a lawyer for Victims of Chiropractic Abuse, wrote in a recent letter of complaint to the state Attorney General's attorney general's office.

"The board is allowing the attorney for the various chiropractic associations to ignore and distort the rules."

Board chair Chairman Matthew W. Scott, a chiropractor in Brookfield, declined to comment.

I've got no problem with chiropractors, except I think they should tell patients about risks that may be associated with a particular neck manipulation.

People shouldn't be worried about seeking treatment, but they also should be informed. If you've had any significant procedure performed by a medical doctor recently, you know what this entails: The physician tells you the risks, however remote, and you sign a piece of paper.

The chiropractors see this fight as an organized campaign to discredit their profession. They strongly disagree that there is a problem, saying it is unfair to single out chiropractors for a procedure where in which there is little substantive research that suggests there is a significant problem.

At the hearings last month, victims who suffered strokes after neck manipulation testified in favor of informed consent. Testifying before the board, Dr. Douglas Fellows, a medical doctor and a member of the state board of medical examiners Connecticut Medical Examining Board, said that aspects of this dispute reminded him of the tobacco industry fighting restrictions on its products.

I'm not sure I'd go that far, but if there's nothing to worry about, why are the chiropractors still fighting this?