The war on chiropractic
Wilk v. American Medical Association (AMA) was a landmark case in the chiropractic profession that challenged the AMA's practices and their impact on chiropractors. The case was brought by chiropractor Dr. Daryl Wilk, along with four other co-plaintiffs, against the AMA and several other co-defendants, including medical associations and boards of certification.
Significance:
Landmark Verdict: The court ruled in favor of Dr.Wilke, declaring the AMA's practices as anticompetitive and a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. This was the first time a major medical association was found liable for anticompetitive behavior against another profession. The AMA had a ‘Committee on Quackery’ which targeted chiropractors.
Impact on Chiropractic Profession: The verdict significantly improved the standing and recognition of chiropractic care within the healthcare system. It opened doors for further collaboration and cooperation between chiropractors and medical professionals.
Setting a Standard: The case established a precedent for future lawsuits against similar discriminatory practices against chiropractic care. It also set a standard for ethical conduct within medical associations.
Lingering Effects: While the initial injunction against the AMA was lifted in the late eighties, the court acknowledged the "lingering effects"* of the association’s practices and continued to impose some limitations on the AMA's conduct.
Overall Significance: The Wilks v. AMA case is a landmark example of a successful challenge against discrimination within the healthcare system. It significantly improved the standing of the chiropractic profession and set a precedent for ethical conduct within medical associations.
The Committee on Quackery, established by the American Medical Association (AMA) in 1963, had a controversial history primarily focused on suppressing the chiropractic profession. While the AMA presented it as a means to protect the public from harmful practices, it faced criticism for being anti-competitive and motivated by protecting the AMA's dominance in the healthcare field.
Objectives:
Officially aimed to expose and combat “unproven and potentially harmful” medical practices. In reality, it primarily targeted the growing chiropractic profession, which the AMA deemed “unscientific” and a threat to their established role.
Activities:
Lobbying against chiropractic legislation and licensure.
Sponsoring negative media campaigns portraying chiropractic as dangerous.
Encouraging medical doctors to refuse collaboration with chiropractors.
Criticisms:
Accused of using unethical tactics to limit competition and stifle patient choice.
Viewed by many as motivated by economic self-interest rather than genuine concern for patient safety.
Contributed to a hostile environment for chiropractors and hindered public access to alternative healthcare options.
Outcome:
While the Committee on Quackery is a closed chapter, it serves as a cautionary tale about the potential for professional organizations to abuse their power and engage in anti-competitive practices. The Wilk v. AMA case remains a landmark decision upholding fair competition and patient choice in healthcare.
It's important to note that the chiropractic profession itself has evolved significantly since then, with more research and evidence-based practices. The relationship between the AMA and chiropractic profession has also improved, with greater recognition and collaboration in some areas.
