Memorandum Opinion and Order:
Liability of the AMA and Dr. Sammons
5. Patient Care Defense
I now consider whether the AMA has established the Wilk patient care defense. The first element is whether the AMA and its members genuinely entertained a concern for scientific method in the care of patients. I have some question about the genuineness of the AMA’s concern for scientific method based on the fact that when the AMA adopted changes in its chiropractic policy between 1977 and 1980, it apparently did so without deciding whether chiropractic was scientific. That shows disregard for scientific method in patient care. Nevertheless, I conclude that the AMA has established this element. At the time it was attacking chiropractic as unscientific, it was attacking other unscientific methods of treatment of disease, for example the Krebiozen treatment of cancer. The existence of medical standards or guidelines against unscientific practice is common. Other medical societies hove long had such prohibitions and the chiropractors themselves have a similar ethical guideline. So I conclude that the AMA has established the first element of genuine concern.
The next element is whether the concern for scientific method in patient care is objectively reasonable. In connection with this element of the patient care defense, the parties have devoted a substantial amount of effort in attempting to prove that chiropractic was either good or bad, efficacious or deleterious, quackery or science. At the time the Committee on Quackery was operating, there was a lot of material available to the Committee that supported its belief that all chiropractic was unscientific and deleterious. In fact, there was a substantial amount of evidence on which the Committee reasonably could conclude that chiropractic was based on the single cause of disease theory, despite some contrary evidence that the theory had been disavowed by modern practitioners.
There also was some evidence before the Committee that chiropractic was effective – more effective than the medical profession in treating certain kinds of problems such as workmen’s back injuries. The Committee on Quackery was also aware that some medical physicians believed chiropractic to be effective and that chiropractors were better trained to deal with musculoskeletal problems than most medical physicians. The Committee did not follow up on any of these studies or opinions. Basically the Committee members were doctors who, because of their firm belief that chiropractic had to be stopped and eliminated, volunteered for service on the Committee. Dr. David B. Stevens, who testified during the trial, was one of these dedicated individuals who devoted a substantial amount of time to his committee work. But it was very clear that he and other committee members did not hove minds open to pro-chiropractic arguments or evidence.
The AMA acknowledges that, after the Committee on Quackery disbanded, chiropractic improved (and the AMA takes partial, credit for it). For example, Mr. Carlson, one of the AMA’s trial attorneys stated in final argument:
Dr. Winterstein testified that chiropractic has changed. And it has changed.
And we suggest that one reason that it changed was because of the criticism of its bizarre methods. Now, do you hear in this courtroom anything about one cause/one cure? Sure don’t.
You hear about neuromusculo reasons, neuromusculo diagnosis, neuromusculo conditions. This is the new parlance. They have done away, for the most port, with the one cause/one cure. I understand there is one small element of chiropractic that still adheres to it. But it’s not the major element.
… And they have improved … Chiropractic, I think is still changing. It began really changing when the accrediting arm of the ACA (American Chiropractic Association), as opposed to the ICA (international Chiropractic Association), was accepted, was recognized by the Department of Education as the sole accrediting body for chiropractic.
And that occurred in ’73, ’74, ’75, something like that. And that’s really when chiropractic began to evolve.
Most significantly, Dr. Alan R. Nelson, the current Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the AMA testified (at pp. 2029-30):
My personal position, and I think that I can accurately reflect the position of the AMA in this, is that the fundamental theory of chiropractic as it was earlier portrayed was not supported by scientific evidence, first.
Secondly, that the nature of services that are being delivered by chiropractors are now diverse and includes some forms of manipulation that do hove a scientific basis.
And, third, the responsibility for determining what is in the best interest of an individual patient rests with the individual practitioner and that there is nothing unethical about me asking a chiropractor to deliver a form of manipulative therapy that appears to me to have a scientific basis, and I think I’m accurately reflecting the testimony of Dr. Epps. [Dr. Charles Harry Epps, an orthopedic surgeon, testified that some chiropractic treatments ore scientific. Dr. Epps is presently a member of the Judicial Council of the AMA and he testified for the AMA.]
Most defense witnesses agreed that some chiropractic treatment is efficacious — although certainly no one involved in this case, including the plaintiffs, believes that chiropractic treatment should be used for the treatment of diseases such as cancer, diabetes, and infections. It is hard to pinpoint when the changes in chiropractic testified to by AMA witnesses occurred, but it is likely that they occurred while the boycott was still in effect. Thus the AMA’s own evidence suggests that at some point during the boycott there was no longer an objectively reasonable concern that would support a boycott of the entire chiropractic profession.
The plaintiffs clearly want more from the court. They want a judicial pronouncement that chiropractic is a valid, efficacious, even scientific health care service. I believe that the answer to that question can only be provided by a well designed, controlled, scientific study such as the one urged by the United States Congress’ Office of Technology Assessment in its review of the New Zealand Report. In 1980, the AMA House of Delegates urged that such a study be done. No such study has ever been done. In the absence of such a study, the court is left to decide the issue on the basis of largely anecdotal evidence. I decline to pronounce chiropractic valid or invalid on anecdotal evidence.
The plaintiffs, however, point out that the anecdotal evidence in the record favors chiropractors. The patients who testified were helped by chiropractors and not by medical physicians. Dr. Per Freitag, a medical physician who associates with chiropractors, has observed that patients in one hospital who receive chiropractic treatment are released sooner than patients in another hospital in which he is on staff which does not allow chiropractors. Dr. John McMillan Mennell, M.D. testified in favor of chiropractic. Even the defendants’ economic witness, Mr. Lynk, assumed that chiropractors outperformed medical physicians in the treatment of certain conditions and he believed that was a reasonable assumption.
The defendants have offered some evidence as to the unscientific nature of chiropractic. The study of how the five original named plaintiffs diagnosed and actually treated patients with common symptoms was particularly impressive. This study demonstrated that the plaintiffs do not use common methods in treating common symptoms and that the treatment of patients appears to be undertaken on an ad hoc rather than on a scientific basis. And there was evidence of the use of cranial adjustments to cure cerebral palsy and other equally alarming practices by some chiropractors.
I do not minimize the negative evidence. But most of the defense witnesses, surprisingly, appeared to be testifying for the plaintiffs. Taking into account all of the evidence, I conclude only that the AMA has failed to meet its burden on the issue of whether its concern for the scientific method in support of the boycott of the entire chiropractic profession was objectively reasonable throughout the entire period of the boycott. This finding is not and should not be construed as a judicial endorsement of chiropractic.
The next element of the patient care defense is whether the AMA’s concern about scientific method has been the dominant motivating factor in the defendants’ promulgation of Principle 3 in the conduct undertaken and intended to implement Principle 3. The AMA has carried its burden on this issue. While there is some evidence that the Committee on Quackery and the AMA were motivated by economic concerns – there are too many references in the record to chiropractors as competitors to ignore – I am persuaded that the dominant factor was patient care and the AMA’s subjective belief that chiropractic was not in the best interests of patients.
The final question is whether this concern for scientific method in patient care could have been adequately satisfied in a manner less restrictive of competition. It would be a difficult task to persuade a court that a boycott and conspiracy designed to contain and eliminate a profession that was licensed in all fifty states at the time the Committee on Quackery disbanded was the only way to satisfy the AMA’s concern for the use of scientific method in patient care. The AMA presented no evidence that a public education approach or any other less restrictive approach was beyond the ability or resources of the AMA or had been tried and failed. The AMA obviously was not successful in defeating the licensing of chiropractic on a state by state basis, but that failure does not mean that they had to resort to the highly restrictive means of the boycott. The AMA and other medical societies have managed to change America’s health-related conduct by what appears to be good public relations work and there has been no proof that a similar campaign would not have been at least as effective as the boycott in educating consumers about chiropractic and the AMA’s concern for scientific method.
Based on these findings, I conclude that the AMA has failed to carry its burden of persuasion on the patient care defense.