This is shared by Dr. Sig .. 8-14-00 His e-mail address is: webinfo@ChiroViewPresents.com ChiroView Presents - ACA & ICA Debate at Palmer College Homecoming! I had the distinct pleasure of spending the past several days at Palmer College of Chiropractic's Homecoming called Lyceum 2000. I want to limit comments to the 2 -hour session I attended entitled "Chiropractic: A Single Voice or Split Profession". ICA representatives included Robert Hoffman, DC - President along with Maxine McMullen, DC. Representing ACA included James Mertz, DC - President and Michael Flynn, DC. The moderator entertained questions from five distinguished individuals including Palmer College's ICA and ACA student presidents, a field practitioner who apparently was positioned in the ICA camp, and two faculty members, each supporting either ACA or ICA positions. Ian McLean, DC, DABCR who serves as ChiroView's department head for diagnostic imaging, was one of the faculty members posing questions. The other invited field practitioner, for whatever reason, was unable to attend. I was impressed with the overall format, the professional demeanor of all participants, and how the many topics were addressed. To this observer, there was far more agreement than disagreement on the majority of issues. The levels of passion and commitment were obvious on several issues of disagreement, which included in part, terminology, research focus, treatment guidelines, and policy. Generally speaking, it was apparent ICA and ACA representatives believed that "merger" at any time in the near future was unlikely, but "unity" was obtainable. I was intrigued when some on the panel suggested the relationship between ACA and ICA should be viewed as a "two-party" system, like Democrats and Republicans. And that this so-called division would serve our profession in a positive way. The term "checks and balances" came up in this regard. I couldn't disagree more. I will address that in a moment, but first a few positives. If this is truly to be viewed as a two-party system, then my hat is off to Dr. Mertz and Dr. Flynn because what these two extraordinary individuals did was essentially agree to show up at the other political party's convention to debate! Both handled themselves with grace. They were professional, articulate and firm in their beliefs. As an aside, during the past year I have had the opportunity to communicate with Jim through the ChiroView Presents broadcast. I am proud to have both Jim and Michael as colleagues; chiropractors who are firm in their convictions and willing to put themselves in the spotlight in order to do what they believe to be best for the profession. And by the way, whether I agree with all they had to say is irrelevant. As an aside, I think many know that I am both an ACA and ICA member. My biggest disappointment was not with what was said, but more with the behavior observed involving, what I believed were some of the Palmer students. On several occasions they behaved disrespectfully in their reaction to selected comments made by ACA representatives. They were arrogant, and I was embarrassed. The moderator performed brilliantly by announcing that this type of behavior was unacceptable and would not be tolerated. Regarding ICA and Dr. Hoffman, as always he appeared elegant, professional, articulate and as passionate as ever. I've had the opportunity on several occasions to talk to Bob on the telephone and through the ChiroView Presents broadcast. If I had a company to run, he would be my spokesperson. Whether I agree with all that he had to say is again irrelevant. I think his presence, his being in the spotlight representing chiropractic is wonderful, pure and simple! I thoroughly enjoyed Maxine McMullen, DC and so did those in the audience, especially the students. Along with serving as an ICA representative, she is a Palmer College faculty member and apparently is loved and highly respected. Now back to what I believe to be important. As a profession, it is absurd to think we can exist as a two-party profession. We must become a one-party profession. I see no issue if we were to develop a relationship like today's "president and vice president". In other words, we can disagree on various issues behind closed doors, battle it out, and do whatever we have to do. But when we are done, when we leave that room, we can and must speak in one voice to those outside the profession. Don't tell me we can't move forward as one professional organization with present leadership in place. We can embrace diversity and be all the better for it. You probably think that I am kidding in what I am about to say. But trust me, I am dead serious. If I had my way, I would lock both Jim and Bob in a room; OK a nice room with maybe a window. No other ACA or ICA representatives would be allowed in. I would sit in the room with them at the table and say "listen boys, nobody gets out of here alive unless we get this worked out. No food - no water - no visits to the bathroom. They would be allowed to bring with them one large paper cup to be used anyway they choose! I'm serious. Regardless of what anyone says, I know deep down they truly believe these things can be worked out. During this recent debate, as I listened to each "point of disagreement", I was saying to myself that I just can't believe this is what's keeping both associations apart, that these differences can't be worked out. Although this is an assumption, I believe others involved with ICA and ACA politics are more of the reason for keeping the associations apart than these two extraordinary leaders. Maybe we just need another Camp David! From my perspective, our primary focus should not be on chiropractic, but on the chiropractor. I've heard Bob speak this way and I agree. And one more point. If we are to speak in one voice, it has got to get louder since both ICA and ACA represent less than 25% of the profession! I don't want to hear excuses. I want results. The field doctor needs help. And there is no more time to waste! Cheers! Sig