[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
September 23, 1988

Chiropractic and Judge Getzendanner's Injunction

Author Affiliations

The American College of Orthopaedic Medicine Big Bear Lake, Calif

The American College of Orthopaedic Medicine Big Bear Lake, Calif

JAMA. 1988;260(12):1717. doi:10.1001/jama.1988.03410120063023

To the Editor.—  The letter by Dr Needles concerning Judge Getzendanner's chiropractic decision1 did not address some of the fundamental issues of this problem, and I would like to express another perspective.Chiropractic is not unified but regularly engages in internecine conflicts that reveal profound internal inconsistencies. Dr Needles may be referring to this by first calling chiropractic a profession and then describing it as exploiting superstition and prejudice. He does not distinguish, however, between the exploitive elements and those chiropractic clinicians who have, in fact, made notable contributions.As examples, the standard A-P open mouth radiological view of the cervical vertebrae was originally a chiropractic technique. A recent text on cervical injury written by chiropractors is already well received.2 William V. Glenn, Jr, MD, a well-known radiologist, has the impression, now under study, that chiropractic-requested studies produce a higher abnormal yield than those from MDs (Dr Glenn,