Dear Neil,
> I, too think your observations and thoughts are interesting. I think
> also it is dangerous to jump to conclusions as to causes and effects.
Absolutely, my thoughts were not meant to be a "be all end all" rather
something to reflect on and maybe see as one alternative among many.
> Most clients I see with cervical spine problems also have what would
> appear to be SIJ dysfunction. What is more when this is treated, there
> is an immediate improvement in their pain and cervical spine movements.
> Results of cervical treatment seem to be quicker and longer lasting if
> SIJ (and lumbar spine, and neural, and fascial, and thoracic spine...)
> 'dysfunctions' are addressed in each treatment session. Patients with
> sprained ankles, knee problems, and fractured wrists also have SIJ
> dysfunction as I suspect a large portion of the assymptomatic population
> do.
I couldn't agree more (for years I've been accused of seeing nothing but
SIJ dysfunctions in everything).
> We have been educated with a certain framework which states that certain
> relationships exist between structures and symptoms. We assume that if
> treating something results in change that that structure is at least a
> cause if not the cause. This leads to reflexologists looking only at
> feet, many chiropractors looking only at vertebral allignment,others
> looking at vertebral movement from a theoretical biomechanical
> viewpoint, many masseurs looking only at muscles, many psychologists or
> social workers looking only at intellectual or emotional factors, many
> physios looking at one, two, or some combination of realms.
>
> The kind of seemingly strange relationships that you describe occur and
> by using a very scientific method in treatment of forming a hypothesis,
> testing it with treatment, reassessing, revising the hypothesis,...
> patterns emerge. The hypotheses of cause and effect are based on
> assumptions which are usually unquestioned such as what structures and
> what functions are capable of causing symptoms through what mechanisms.
> I think the risk is getting stuck in one interpretation. There are
> hundreds of systems around for treatment, many of which are based on 'I
> had this problem and this fixed it and so I investigated further and
> found...'. All have some merit, but I suspect none is 42.
Very true it is very difficult to try to fathom the whole picture, but
we need at least to try. Also it is vitally important to stay open to
new possibilities and angles. BTW 42, are we talking Hitchhikers Guide
to the Galaxy here? How many roads must a man walk down.... ;-)
> In short, I know much less about treating patients than I did 25 years
> ago. I never know when a patient and I begin, what course the treatment
> or even a particular treatment session will take. I scratch my head much
> more, my jaw drops much more often, I ask more questions verbally and
> physically,and overall work is more interesting and much more fun. I
> know a lot more systems and theories and find more and more things that
> none of them explain.
I guess this is one of the things that make our jobs so interesting.
> I guess this is not exactly a response to your questions, but a rambling
> set off by your observations. I, too will be interested in the
> directions your observations lead you.
I'll try to keep the list informed on any further developments.
All the best,
David
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|