Chiropractors' Argument Falls On Deaf EarsPublished: 2010-01-10 10:03:15Author: Rick Green | Hartford Courant | January 5, 2010While a group of victims of chiropractic stroke listened intently at
the state Capitol late Monday afternoon, Matthew N. Pagano stood in
front of the cameras to declare that "there is no cause and effect
relationship between chiropractic and stroke."
His problem was that cause and effect was all around him.
Pagano, a
Winstedchiropractor talking on behalf of the Connecticut Chiropractic
Association, spoke out against a proposal that would require
chiropractors to tell their patients about the remote risk of a stroke
from cervical manipulation.
The State Board of Chiropractic Examiners will open hearings on the
proposal this morning at the Capitol. Pagano showed up after a Capitol
news conference organized by chiropractic stroke victims who want
Connecticut to become the first state to require specific "informed
consent."
"What we do is substantiated by years of research," Pagano said, repeating his "cause and effect" argument.
David MacDonald sat watching from his wheelchair. A
neck adjustment led to a stroke nine years ago for MacDonald, a former package store manager who lives in
Windsor Locks. Now 62, he remains partially paralyzed.
Pagano's opposition didn't sit well with Christa Heck, who also looked on in amazement. Six years ago, the
New Yorkwoman had a stroke after a neck manipulation at age 39. She thought she
had an inner ear infection and waited too long to go to the hospital.
No one told her about the risk of a stroke.
Then there was Britt Harwe, a
Wethersfieldwoman who also stood listening to Pagano's embarrassing defense. If
medical doctors had known Harwe had been to a chiropractor, it might
not have taken them days to figure out what was wrong with her. It's
taken her 16 years just to resume the ability to eat solid food.
Unfortunately, Pagano's desperate argument got worse.
I asked how informing patients — people such as MacDonald, Heck and
Harwe — would be harmful? Wouldn't it actually benefit doctor and
patient alike if everyone was more informed?
Pagano told me that the information patients get would actually be
limited if the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners identified this
specific procedure for informed consent.
Pagano said limiting informed consent to a single type of treatment
would mean patients would actually learn less about their overall
health care.
I just can't believe that chiropractors are against informing patients
because they fear losing business. I also don't see how requiring more
information about one procedure would stop a chiropractor from more
discussion with a patient. So I asked again.
"This measure would be redundant," Pagano said, because it would be
"singling out" chiropractors. Under state law, all doctors must inform
patients about potentially risky treatment. The chiropractors don't
feel that their neck manipulation is risky.
Not all chiropractors agree with Pagano and the trade associations. A
number have e-mailed me to say that they have no problem with informing
patients about the remote risk of stroke from chiropractic manipulation
of the spine.
Full story