Page 8 - Cleaning_House
P. 8
ANING THE HOUSE — BY B. J. PALMER
check the growth, cut down the number the attempt to t a k e away t h e sick
of chiropractors and without question re people’s common-law rights.
stricting the rights of the sick to get
them well. It was, over again, the ques WHEN CHIROPRACTIC STRANGLES
tion of the rights of the one-tenth of 1%
that had a license; the nine-tenths of 1% OW there has arisen, upon the hori-
that wanted to control, both of which 1% .zon, Chiropractic regulation, and
should be serving the 99% that were this regulation has assumed, in some
calling for them. Were not the calls and places, the same identical attempts of
demands for the 99% of greater impor medical and osteopathic regulation— and
tance than was the 1% ? Was not the de I cite you Nebraska as an example. To
mand FOR chiropractors of the 99% of the WA it makes no difference whether
far more importance than the choking the regulation be medical, osteopathic or
process of the 1% in keeping them out? Chiropractic IF IT DENIES THE RIGHT
OF THE SICK TO GET W ELL; IF IT
The has always been mindful of its DENIES THE RIGHT OF THE SICK
TO GET WELL WITH CHIROPRAC
duty to the sick. The cry of the 99% TIC; IF IT DENIES THE RIGHT OF
THE SICK TO TAKE CHIROPRACTIC
has always taken precedence over the ADJUSTMENTS TO G E T WELL. It
makes no difference to the I£A what the
selfish issues of the one-tenth of 1% —- regulatory requirements are if it takes
away the common-law right o f the prac
the chiropractors. Seeing clearly its duty titioner— of the common-law right of the
people. (APPLAU SE.)
to the sick, The advised competent
Where a Chiropractic regulation as
and qualified chiropractors to go to Ne sumes the same restrictive position as
the osteopathic or medical regulation,
braska. We still protect them in their then we are just that much against any
Chiropractic regulation that accomplishes
right to practice at common law as the ultimate end of keeping the sick
from getting to the chiropractor. There
against the restrictions placed upon, is no mincing of words on that under
standing. The I£A is just as much op
around and about t h e m by statutory posed to one as the other, because the
sick people’s right takes precedence over
regulations. The common-law rights of all rights of others — the right of the
mass takes precedence over the right of
the common people m u s t be protected, any class within it.
whether it be against medical, osteopath With that fixed policy in view, the
has sent chiropractors into the state of
ic or Chiropractic statutes. Nebraska. We have said to them: “ You
have certain common-law rights in the
We have been carrying out that pro state of Nebraska. Go in and practice.
gram in every state of the United States The I£A will protect you” ; but, we were
for seventeen years. W h y should we certain to see that the persons we stood
change that platform, policy or principle behind in Nebraska were competent and
merely because the title of the restric qualified to do t h e things they held
tions of the people’s rights had changed themselves out to do. We saw that the
its name from medicine to osteopathy; common-law rights of the mass of the
or, Chiropractic? Eager devotees fo l people were protected. As a result of that
lowed the dictates and instructions of the position we have had four trials of four
\$A, and no one who is competent and chiropractors in the state of Nebraska.
The situation is seemingly ludicrous.
qualified, has ever been successfully, con
tinuously or permanently, denied the Here is a Chiropractic statute, passed
right to continue his practice in any fo r the purpose of permitting competent
state o f the U. S. where the member
strictly followed t h e instructions laid
down by the I£A. (Applause.)
We have successfully broken down the
acts of medical statutory regulation to
put the chiropractor out of business—
at common law. Later we began to bust
into the osteopathic states and the osteo
paths began to force themselves upon the
common-law chiropractors. Then we got
after the medical statutes and we have
successfully defeated both of these in
[ 8]
check the growth, cut down the number the attempt to t a k e away t h e sick
of chiropractors and without question re people’s common-law rights.
stricting the rights of the sick to get
them well. It was, over again, the ques WHEN CHIROPRACTIC STRANGLES
tion of the rights of the one-tenth of 1%
that had a license; the nine-tenths of 1% OW there has arisen, upon the hori-
that wanted to control, both of which 1% .zon, Chiropractic regulation, and
should be serving the 99% that were this regulation has assumed, in some
calling for them. Were not the calls and places, the same identical attempts of
demands for the 99% of greater impor medical and osteopathic regulation— and
tance than was the 1% ? Was not the de I cite you Nebraska as an example. To
mand FOR chiropractors of the 99% of the WA it makes no difference whether
far more importance than the choking the regulation be medical, osteopathic or
process of the 1% in keeping them out? Chiropractic IF IT DENIES THE RIGHT
OF THE SICK TO GET W ELL; IF IT
The has always been mindful of its DENIES THE RIGHT OF THE SICK
TO GET WELL WITH CHIROPRAC
duty to the sick. The cry of the 99% TIC; IF IT DENIES THE RIGHT OF
THE SICK TO TAKE CHIROPRACTIC
has always taken precedence over the ADJUSTMENTS TO G E T WELL. It
makes no difference to the I£A what the
selfish issues of the one-tenth of 1% —- regulatory requirements are if it takes
away the common-law right o f the prac
the chiropractors. Seeing clearly its duty titioner— of the common-law right of the
people. (APPLAU SE.)
to the sick, The advised competent
Where a Chiropractic regulation as
and qualified chiropractors to go to Ne sumes the same restrictive position as
the osteopathic or medical regulation,
braska. We still protect them in their then we are just that much against any
Chiropractic regulation that accomplishes
right to practice at common law as the ultimate end of keeping the sick
from getting to the chiropractor. There
against the restrictions placed upon, is no mincing of words on that under
standing. The I£A is just as much op
around and about t h e m by statutory posed to one as the other, because the
sick people’s right takes precedence over
regulations. The common-law rights of all rights of others — the right of the
mass takes precedence over the right of
the common people m u s t be protected, any class within it.
whether it be against medical, osteopath With that fixed policy in view, the
has sent chiropractors into the state of
ic or Chiropractic statutes. Nebraska. We have said to them: “ You
have certain common-law rights in the
We have been carrying out that pro state of Nebraska. Go in and practice.
gram in every state of the United States The I£A will protect you” ; but, we were
for seventeen years. W h y should we certain to see that the persons we stood
change that platform, policy or principle behind in Nebraska were competent and
merely because the title of the restric qualified to do t h e things they held
tions of the people’s rights had changed themselves out to do. We saw that the
its name from medicine to osteopathy; common-law rights of the mass of the
or, Chiropractic? Eager devotees fo l people were protected. As a result of that
lowed the dictates and instructions of the position we have had four trials of four
\$A, and no one who is competent and chiropractors in the state of Nebraska.
The situation is seemingly ludicrous.
qualified, has ever been successfully, con
tinuously or permanently, denied the Here is a Chiropractic statute, passed
right to continue his practice in any fo r the purpose of permitting competent
state o f the U. S. where the member
strictly followed t h e instructions laid
down by the I£A. (Applause.)
We have successfully broken down the
acts of medical statutory regulation to
put the chiropractor out of business—
at common law. Later we began to bust
into the osteopathic states and the osteo
paths began to force themselves upon the
common-law chiropractors. Then we got
after the medical statutes and we have
successfully defeated both of these in
[ 8]
