VOCA Victims of Chiropractic Abuse
Chiropractors' Argument Falls On Deaf Ears
Rick Green | Hartford Courant
January 5, 2010
 
While 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 Winsted chiropractor 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 York woman 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 Wethersfield woman 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.

"We have warnings on a McDonald's cup of coffee. We have warnings on everything we ingest," state Sen. Leonard Fasano, R-North Haven, said at the earlier press conference organized by the stroke victims. "This one issue is being fought tooth and nail for reasons beyond my imagination."

I hope the chiropractors and their trade associations, who say this is merely about not wanting to be singled out, won't fight this to the end. But late Monday they filed paperwork seeking to disqualify one of the few members of the board of examiners who is not a chiropractor. What does that tell you?

"Why wouldn't they simply embrace this and let the patient have more information?" Heck asked me after she listened to Pagano. "It doesn't make sense to me."

The chiropractors say they "support a patient's right to be informed of the benefits and risks of any type of health care treatment."

Just not this kind of treatment.

 
Connecticut News
 
March 8, 2011
Three Members of Chiropractic Board Violated Law
 
June 10, 2010
Connecticut chiropractors sued over neck manipulations
 
April 6, 2010
No harm in warning about risk
 
March 19, 2010
Board rejects warning on chiropractic risks
 
March 18, 2010
On Stroke Risks, Chiropractors Manipulate Us
 
March 17, 2010
Chiropractors Prevail in Battle Over Informed Consent
 
February 11, 2010
Chiropractic Conflict Continues in Connecticut
 
February 10, 2010
Patients Need To Know Chiropractic Risks
 
January 6, 2010
Editorial Cartoon
 
January 6, 2010
Advocates seeking state law requiring a warning prior to neck manipulation
 
January 5, 2010
Chiropractors' Argument Falls On Deaf Ears
 
January 5, 2010
Battle brews over safety of neck manipulation
 
January 5, 2010
Chiropractic Stroke Risk
 
January 4, 2010
Stroke risks prompt hearing
 
January 2, 2010
Woodbridge woman fights for warning label
 
December 29, 2009
Chiropractic Patients Should Know Risks
 
November 24, 2009
Young Mom Dies After a Chiropractic Adjustment
 
June 18, 2009
VOCA awards Preston Long, Chiropractor of the Year
 
March 3, 2008
Woman Pushes For Chiropractor Registry
 
November 2007
Stroke Victim Spreads The Word About Dangers of Chiropractic Neck Treatment
 
May 16, 2007
Chiropractic and Stroke Issues on the Rise
 
May 4, 2007
Chiropractor Malpractice Settlements To Be Public
 
May 2, 2007
A Collection of Briefs from the State Capitol
 
April 30, 2007 (MP3 File)
WTIC NewsTalk 1080
 
March 14, 2007
Tougher laws for chiropractors
 
March 13, 2007
A collection of news items from the Capitol
 
March 3, 2007
Injured patients want new rules for chiropractors
 
May 2, 1996
Proposed Law Would Affect Chiropractors