Paralyzed woman sues chiropractic for half billion dollars

[blutoski]

Story: [Paralyzed woman sues chiropractic for half billion dollars (http://www.rabble.ca/news_full_story.shtml?x=72421)]

Excerpt: An Alberta woman, paralyzed after her neck was manipulated by a chiropractor, has launched the biggest-ever class action suit against chiropractic in Canada. The suit, filed yesterday in Edmonton, is asking for more than a half billion dollars in damages not only for the victim, Sandy Nette and her husband, David, but for an entire class – anyone in Alberta treated or harmed by chiropractors who deliver "inappropriate and non-beneficial adjustments."

YouTube video by the plaintiff: [link (http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=F324082BDDF8E50C)]

[PixyMisa]

This is the first time I can recall wanting to contribute to a legal fund for a plaintiff. Go Sandy!

[Blue Wode]

Complete Statement of Claim here:
Sandra Nette v. Gregory John Stiles et al.
http://chirowatch.com/Chiro-lawsuits/Stiles/lawsuit080612stiles.pdf

For news footage of another quadriplegic chiropractic victim, Diane Rodrigue, see here:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0505/primetime.html
(About 25 min 45 sec in)

And its worth remembering that in their book, Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial, Simon Singh and Professor Edzard Ernst propose that all chiropractors be compelled by law to disclose the following to their patients about chiropractic:
WARNING: This treatment carries the risk of stroke or death if spinal manipulation is applied to the neck. Elsewhere on the spine, chiropractic therapy is relatively safe. It has shown some evidence of benefit in the treatment of back pain, but conventional treatments are usually equally effective and much cheaper. In the treatment of all other conditions, chiropractic therapy is ineffective except that it might act as a placebo.


More from Simon Singh here:
…if spinal manipulation were a drug with such serious adverse effects and so little demonstrable benefit, then it would almost certainly have been taken off the market.

Beware The Spinal Trap
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/19/health




The very best of luck to Sandy Nette, her family, and her legal team.

[Soapy Sam]

Hmm.
Seems to me, if I let someone waggle my neck around, it should be self evident that this carries a significant level of risk, given my neck is sort of the bit my spinal cord goes through en route to the head.

Spinal manipulation is potentially hazardous.
Damn right a patient should be told so.
But how many patients would back out at that point and how many would risk it?

Given the choice between shooting all the chiropractors or shooting all the lawyers, I'm afraid I'd still shoot the lawyers.

[Hellbound]

I dunnno.

I think there is such a thing as a good lawyer.

There's not such a thing as a good chiropracter. There's just bad chiropractors and ex-chiropractors.
:D

[Blue Wode]

Hmm.
Seems to me, if I let someone waggle my neck around, it should be self evident that this carries a significant level of risk, given my neck is sort of the bit my spinal cord goes through en route to the head.

Spinal manipulation is potentially hazardous.
Damn right a patient should be told so.

Try telling that to the chiropractic regulators in the UK:
...As for your reporter’s mention of spinal manipulation carrying the ‘risk of dangerous side-effects including strokes’. Actually, there’s no available evidence to show that manipulation of the neck by chiropractors has ever caused a stroke...

Peter Dixon, Chairman of the General Chiropractic Council, in a letter to the Editor of the Daily Mail, 12th December 2006

http://www.gcc-uk.org/files/link_file/DAILY%20MAIL%2012%20December%202006.pdf



Q3. Is chiropractic care safe?
A3. Yes, all the evidence is that chiropractic is a safe and effective form of care…

General Chiropractic Council: Frequently Asked Questions
http://www.gcc-uk.org/page.cfm?page_id=6



But perhaps the General Chiropractic Council’s position isn’t too surprising when you consider that part of its remit is “to promote the profession of chiropractic”.

But how many patients would back out at that point and how many would risk it?

It would be interesting to know the answer to that. What we do know is that large numbers of chiropractors aren’t obtaining informed consent from their patients, despite being legally obliged to do so:
Consent: its practices and implications in United Kingdom and United States chiropractic practice

Results from this survey suggest a patient’s autonomy and right to self-determination may be compromised when seeking chiropractic care. Difficulties and omissions in the implementation of valid consent processes appear common, particularly in relation to risk.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17693332&ordinalpos=6&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum


Consent or submission? The practice of consent within UK chiropractic

Results suggest that valid consent procedures are either poorly understood or selectively implemented by UK chiropractors.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15726031



Indeed, if you watch this short video clip (3 mins 12 secs) which outlines Sandra Nette’s harrowing experience at the hands of a chiropractor, you’ll learn that she didn’t get the chance to make an informed choice about her treatment:
http://watch.ctv.ca/news/latest/class-action-lawsuit/#clip59878

Given the choice between shooting all the chiropractors or shooting all the lawyers, I'm afraid I'd still shoot the lawyers.

In my opinion, the real targets are the politicians who continue to let down the public by failing to ensure that chiropractic is properly regulated and that the public is given factual and accurate information about the therapy.

Here’s the problem in a nutshell:

Chiropractic is rooted in mystical concepts. This led to an internal conflict within the chiropractic profession, which continues today.

Currently, there are two types of chiropractors: those religiously adhering to the gospel of its founding fathers and those open to change.

The core concepts of chiropractic, subluxation, and spinal manipulation, are not based on sound science.

Back and neck pain are the domains of chiropractic but many chiropractors treat conditions other than musculoskeletal problems.

With the possible exception of back pain, chiropractic spinal manipulation has not been shown to be effective for any medical condition.

Manipulation is associated with frequent mild adverse effects and with serious complications of unknown incidence.

Its cost-effectiveness has not been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt.

The concepts of chiropractic are not based on solid science and its therapeutic value has not been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt."

Ernst, E. Chiropractic: A Critical Evaluation, J. Pain Symptom Manage. 2008 May;35(5):544-62
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18280103?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubme



Further reading:
http://ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=chiropractic.php

[JJM]

It is important to note that this victim was healthy, going into the chiro office. She had been mislead into presenting herself for regular "maintenance" treatments. The chiro neck-snap is never indicated because there are safer ways for treating complaints. In the absence of a complaint, it is even more profoundly asinine.

[portlandatheist]

This is profoundly depressing.

[Blue Wode]

More news.

Sandra Nette’s lawyers are urging any other Albertans who may have suffered similar injuries to come forward. They have now set up a website

http://albertachiroclassaction.ca/

hoping to bring further plaintiffs into the case.

According to Sandra Nette’s lawyer, Daryl Wilson, six other people have already expressed interest in becoming members of the suit.

For those who haven't clicked on the Statement of Claim link, here's a closer look at it:
Sandra Gay Nette and David Nette v. Gregory John Stiles (The Spa at LifeStiles), Alberta College and Association of Chiropractors, and Her Majesty The Queen In Right of Alberta (Minister of Health and Wellness)

1. This lawsuit arises from the fact that, once again, a perfectly healthy young woman’s life has been irreparably and devastatingly damaged as a result of her exposure to a chiropractor’s manipulation of the vertebrae in her upper neck to correct alleged subluxations. The procedure is an ineffective and dangerous one which chiropractors employ routinely. Ideological practitioners of chiropractic masquerading in the white smock of science perpetuate its unregulated indiscriminate use with the condonation and protection of their supposed regulator against all reason. It has got to be stopped.

2. This action concerns the promotion and supply, by members of Alberta College and Association of Chiropractors to the Class Members, for economic gain, of chiropractic interventions directed at the identification and correction of “vertebral subluxations” or involving manipulation of the upper cervical spine during the Class Period and seeks damages for the losses which the plaintiffs and the other Class Members were exposed to and suffered thereby.

3. For the purpose of this pleading, the following definitions apply:

-snip-

3 (c) “Inappropriate and Non-beneficial Adjustment” means

(i) diagnostic procedures or chiropractic adjustment of the spinal column rendered to asymptomatic persons, persons without an identifiable medical condition or persons with vertebral subluxations:

(ii) any chiropractic adjustment of the spinal column other than chiropractic adjustment of the lumbar spine based on objective patient assessment finding(s) of mechanical disability in a joint of the lumbar spine, to treat a diagnosis made a the time the adjustment is administered of acute or sub-acute uncomplicated low back pin in an adult

-snip-

11. The Class Defendants owed the Class Members a duty to

(a) not advise unsubstantiated procedures that lacked scientific justification or plausible rationale, or disproven procedures, to the Class Members who sought health care services from them nor subject them to such procedures;

(b) fairly disclose the demonstrated benefits and the material risks associated with the interventions they advised to the class Members who sought health care services from them, the comparative risks and benefits of other forms of service(s), or of non-treatment, and to obtain their informed consent to the services(s) provided to them;

(c) not to charge them a fee for services that cannot restore, maintain or enhance human health.

More:
http://chirowatch.com/Chiro-lawsuits/Stiles/lawsuit080612stiles.pdf



The entire Statement of Claim covers 81 pages, but it’s well worth a read – not least to learn about the way in which the Alberta College and Association of Chiropractors has been conducting its regulatory duties…


For anyone wondering why chiropractic is controversial, this February 2008 lecture by Bill Kinsinger MD, is well worth a view (approx. 42 mins):
http://ph-ms.ouhsc.edu/ah/rehab/kinsinger.wmv

[Dr. Imago]

I might have told this story before...

When I was an intern, I took care of a patient in the surgical ICU. He was a healthy 32-year-old guy who got a "complimentary" cervical spine adjustment from a chiropractor to whom he used sell dietary aids.

Long story short, he was a quadriplegic after this adjustment. One of the vertebral arteries was severed, he had swelling within the spinal canal, and he became permanently paralyzed.

I don't know if he ever sued. We transferred him to a rehab facility and I lost touch. Of course, that was after a tracheostomy was performed and a gastric feeding tube placed.

Key point: as was pointed out, no one really knows how many of these happen. I don't believe there is a database out there available that quantifies such occurrences. Maybe that should change. In my book, chiropractic adjustment of the cervical spine is a dangerous practice that should never be attempted by the practitioner (or tried by the patient). If you are having neck pain, go see a real doctor.

-Dr. Imago

[Mojo]

Given the choice between shooting all the chiropractors or shooting all the lawyers, I'm afraid I'd still shoot the lawyers.Try telling that to the chiropractic regulators in the UK:

But perhaps the General Chiropractic Council’s position isn’t too surprising when you consider that part of its remit is “to promote the profession of chiropractic”.


At least the lawyers seem to be recognising this. Under the Legal Services Act 2007 the Law Society's regulatory functions are going to be transferred to an independent Legal Services Board, so that the Society will no longer have the dual (and potentially conflicting) roles of regulating and representing the profession.

Meanwhile, of course, the Society of Homeopaths (which certainly promotes homeopathy) is trying to set itself up as a regulatory body...

[Blue Wode]

Under the Legal Services Act 2007 the Law Society's regulatory functions are going to be transferred to an independent Legal Services Board, so that the Society will no longer have the dual (and potentially conflicting) roles of regulating and representing the profession.


Very interesting. Thanks for that, Mojo.

In my book, chiropractic adjustment of the cervical spine is a dangerous practice that should never be attempted by the practitioner (or tried by the patient). If you are having neck pain, go see a real doctor.


I think that message is slowly beginning to get out. For example, here's another video clip (3 mins) of a chiropractic victim. She lost the ability to swallow and now has to feed herself special liquids through a tube attached to a catheter into her stomach:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wCicEGlRXk

More about her campaign here (55 secs):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPSQf5CI5Pg

And there's this too, from another victim:

Is A Headache Worth Dying For? (2 mins)
http://www.neck911usa.com/vide.htm


Plus there's these victim groups:

Victims of Chiropractic Abuse
http://www.vocact.com/index.php

Victims of Irresponsible Chiropractic Education and Standards (VOICES)
http://www.voicesusa.org/

Action for Victims of Chiropractic
http://www.chirovictims.org.uk/


It'll be interesting to see how the chiropractic profession goes about defending the indefensible this time now that the eyes of the world are watching.

[orphia nay]

It'll be interesting to see how the chiropractic profession goes about defending the indefensible this time now that the eyes of the world are watching.

I agree - very interesting.

[Blue Wode]

More from Canada.

This is Sandy Nette’s website:
http://sandynette.com/

And this is an excerpt from the Review of Literature: Chiropractic in Alberta which was published yesterday by Sandy Nette’s legal team (see page 4):
The chiropractic paradigm makes medical diagnosis unnecessary, since one needs only correct the subluxations to liberate the body's own natural healing forces. Thus, much of chiropractic is actually focused on the spine as a source of disease, not the back as a source of pain; and chiropractic practice therefore largely involves finding these supposed abnormalities and correcting them through manual manipulation.

Since this notion was first put forward the chiropractic discipline has evolved, with some practitioners clinging to the original notion, some denouncing it, and others adopting a loosely defined middle ground.

Chiropractic is controversial because it has failed to meet the most fundamental standards applied to the health sciences: to clearly define itself and to establish a science-based scope of practice. The legislatures in Canada nevertheless endorse the validity of its treatments politically by according chiropractic legal recognition, the privileges of self-governance reserved for the professions, and, in Alberta, public fiscal support. But because the core concepts of chiropractic, vertebral “subluxation” and spinal manipulation, are not based on sound science, effective
regulation is elusive and many chiropractors treat conditions other than musculoskeletal problems, including hypothetical conditions only they believe exist, in adults, children and even babies.

This poses a risk to persons who cannot distinguish between scientific medicine and unscientific chiropractic, or appropriate versus inappropriate use of spinal manipulation. Generally people are concerned about their health and are increasingly proactive in their desire to protect it and, where possible, to improve it. They are made more vulnerable by health related laws that pay no attention to science and provide chiropractors who stand ready to manipulate their vulnerability with undeserved credibility. People cannot be blamed for not realizing that that chiropractic has no scientific foundation. They assume that a government licensed “doctor” is practicing a valid healing art that is regulated according to standards providing for the safety and effectiveness of its methods. Certainly that is what chiropractors and their College tell them. But this assumption is in error.

-snip-

Alberta’s licensing laws do not restrict the scope of chiropractic practice because they do not infringe on the chiropractic philosophy or approach to health and disease. As the ACAC’s media kit demonstrates, chiropractic organizations present chiropractic as a “safe, clinically effective and cost controlled” discipline specializing in back pain and other musculoskeletal problems – “one of the most effective methods of health care available. It is a healing discipline firmly
grounded in science.” The literature suggests that the reality is otherwise, because a hypothetical system of healing defies regulation.

Research and Current Evidence
Adequate, methodologically sound scientific evaluation demonstrates that with the possible exception of low back pain, chiropractic spinal manipulation has not been shown to be effective for any medical condition. (For patients with low back pain the benefit of chiropractic is dubious and to the extent it does in fact exist it is marginal.) It is however associated with an exorbitantlyhigh incidence of mild adverse effects and with serious complications of unknown, but unacceptably high, incidence. Further, its cost-effectiveness has not been demonstrated beyond
reasonable doubt.

The ACAC media kit chooses to ignore this evidence.

However, it has been noted in the literature that the terms “research” and “science” appear frequently in the chiropractic literature with a variety of meanings “unfamiliar to most scientists.” Like any scientific issue with financial implications (such as global warming or the health effects of tobacco) the dissemination to the public of supposed “scientific” information tends to validate chiropractic and its methods, often without the concurrence of the scientific community.

More…
http://albertachiroclassaction.ca/docs/Chiro_Class_Action_Backgrounder.pdf

[Dr. Imago]

I think that message is slowly beginning to get out.

In the field of Anesthesiology, we have the "closed claims" database. This is a compilation of specific occurrences that have resulted in a lawsuit against an anesthesiologist after the case is settled or disposed through the courts.

What's important from this database is the learning that occurs. It quantifies the nature of the claims from the claimants, and seeks to understand what happened and why. From this, we are able to observe what are potentially "risky" practices and mitigate them when possible. This allows us to generate a risk/benefit profile for any of the procedures that we routinely employ in our practice.

I think something like this is needed in chiropractic. And, it needs to be led by chiropractors. They should put all of their chips on the table. If there clearly is a dangerous or overly "risky" practice they engage in, it would provide them the opportunity to learn and, most importantly, to know what their colleagues are doing and how they can improve what they do.

But, I'm not holding my breath...

-Dr. Imago

[Gord_in_Toronto]

<< SNIP >>

But, I'm not holding my breath...

-Dr. Imago

Thank the IPU for that; we could not afford lose a skeptic or a doctor!

If this court case does get accepted as class action suite, I can't wait to see the lieing, whining and sqawking from the chiroquacks here in Canada. And, I suppose, there is even a faint hope that it may result in the spotlight of rationality melting them into a puddle of water, "I'm melting. I'm melting!".

But I'm not holding my breath. After all, the world cannot afford to lose a skeptic, or a potential patient.

:D

[Loss Leader]

Don't know about Canada, but in the US this would never get certified as a class.

[Blue Wode]

For those interested, neurologist Steven Novella has just produced this blog post about the Nettes' lawsuit:
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=316

Snippet -
[Sandra Nette] had a dissection in one of her vertebral arteries causing a stroke in her brainstem. This resulted in what is called a “locked in” syndrome - probably the worst outcome possible of a stroke. People who are locked in can move their eyes but nothing more (depending upon how complete it is). They may or may not be able to breathe on their own, but they cannot speak or move any of their limbs. They are locked into a living death.

-snip-

Watch how the government and chiropractors respond to this law suit. It will be very telling.


And this is a short video featuring Greg Stiles, the chiropractor who allegedly caused Sandra Nette’s series of strokes which resulted in her becoming tetraplegic:
http://myhealthvideo.com/chiro2/chiro.htm#

The video is lifted from the website of the Alberta College and Association of Chiropractors. Although the College is responsible for regulating the practice of chiropractic in Alberta, the video contains worthless patient testimonials rather than references to the current scientific evidence on chiropractic spinal manipulation and warnings about its potential dangers.

[ponderingturtle]

Hmm.
Seems to me, if I let someone waggle my neck around, it should be self evident that this carries a significant level of risk, given my neck is sort of the bit my spinal cord goes through en route to the head.


But this is a profeshional they know what they are doing.

[Blue Wode]

The Alberta College and Association of Chiropractors has just broken its silence with this press release:
Attention Health/News Editors:

Beneficial, effective health care
Over 800,000 Albertans seek treatment from a Doctor of Chiropractic each year

EDMONTON, June 19 /CNW/ - Chiropractic health care is a beneficial and
effective treatment option that provides thousands of Albertans with relief
from pain and dysfunction said the Alberta College and Association of
Chiropractors (ACAC) today in response to a call for limits to be placed on
vertebral adjustment (also termed manipulation) of the neck.

"In comparison with many other common health care interventions,
chiropractic adjustment is one of the safest and lowest risk options," said
ACAC president, Dr. Clark Mills. "Side effects from chiropractic adjustment
are typically minor and resolve quickly."

The most recent research into neck adjustment further supports the safety
record. The results of a collaborative and multidisciplinary six-year study by
the Bone and Joint Task Force on Neck Pain and its Associated Disorders into
the causes, prognosis and treatment of neck pain were published in the
peer-reviewed journal Spine in January 2008. The study concludes that
Vertebral Basilar Artery (VBA) stroke is a very rare event in the population.
The research indicates clearly that the risk of VBA stroke associated with a
visit to a chiropractor's office appears to be no different from the risk of
VBA stroke following a visit to a physician's office.

The study concludes that this type of stroke commonly begins with neck
pain and/or headache which causes the patient to seek care from their
chiropractor or family physician before the stroke fully develops.

Similarly, a British study of more than 19,000 chiropractic patients
encompassing over 50,000 cervical spine manipulations published in October
2007 in Spine found "no reports of serious adverse events."

In Canada, a study conducted by the Institute for Clinical Evaluative
Sciences (ICES) states, "The evidence to date indicates that the risk
associated with chiropractic manipulation of the neck is both small and
inaccurately estimated. The estimated level of risk is smaller than that
associated with many commonly used diagnostic tests or prescription drugs."
The study was published in 2001 in the medical journal Stroke.

"The call for a limit on adjustment of the neck is unfounded and based on
anecdotal reports," said Dr. Mills. "The body of published, peer-reviewed
research internationally clearly supports the safety of this health care
practice."

Chiropractic is a regulated health profession in Alberta. Chiropractors
deliver health services under a legislated scope of practice. In Canada,
chiropractors require a minimum of seven years of post-secondary education:
three years at an undergraduate university level including science
pre-requisites followed by an additional four years of specialized training at
an accredited chiropractic college.

For further information: For media inquiries, please contact: Deb Manz,
CEO, Alberta College and Association of Chiropractors, 11203 - 70 Street,
Edmonton, Alberta, T5B 1T1, telephone: (780) 420-0932, email:
dmanz@albertachiro.com

http://www.cnw.ca/en/releases/archive/June2008/19/c6199.html




Most of arguments put forward by the ACAC have already been addressed here. But with regard to the British study of more than 19,000 chiropractic patients encompassing over 50,000 cervical spine manipulations published in October 2007 in Spine which found "no reports of serious adverse events", it’s interesting to read Ernst’s analysis of it:
This is a most laudable attempt to define how often serious adverse effects of cervical manipulation happen. To generate certainty, such studies need to be very large, must not lose patients to follow-up and have to rely on accurate reporting. The sample of this survey was sizeable but not large enough to exclude rare events. Thus the authors can only state that, at worst, the risk of serious adverse events within 7 days after manipulation is 2 per 10 000 treatment consultations. If the average patient has a series of 10 treatments, this risk could therefore be as high as 1 in 500 per patient. Given the nature of the risk, i.e. stroke or death, this is by no means negligible. The picture gets more complicated when considering the 698 treatment consultations of patients who failed to return for their next treatment. Theoretically some or most or all of these patients could have died of a stroke. Overlooking even one single serious adverse event would change the estimated incidence rates from this study quite dramatically.

In my view, the most confusing aspect about the results of this survey is the fact that the incidence of minor adverse events is so low. Previous studies have repeatedly shown it to be around 50%. The discrepancy requires an explanation. There could be several but mine goes as follows: the participating chiropractors were highly self-selected. Thus they were sufficiently experienced to select low-risk patients (in violation of the protocol). This explains the low rate of minor adverse events and begs the question whether the incidence of serious adverse events is reliable. Studies of this nature are very difficult to conduct such that we can trust the results. One of the problems is that one has to rely on the honesty of the participating therapists who could have a very strong interest in generating a reassuring yet unreliable picture about the safety of their intervention.

http://www.medicinescomplete.com/journals/fact/current/fact1301a07g04r01.htm




For those interested, Chirobase has now covered the lawsuit:
Stroke triggers major anti-chiropractic lawsuit.

A Canadian woman who was paralyzed by a neck manipulation has filed a class-action lawsuit intended to stop inappropriate chiropractic manipulation and force Canadian regulators to deal with this problem. The suit, which is seeking more than $525 million in damages, targets Alberta chiropractors who provide inappropriate spinal manipulations and regulators who have failed to curb their use.

The woman, Sandra Nette, now has "locked-in syndrome," a condition that has been described as "the closest thing to being buried alive." She is fully aware of her surroundings and suffers at times from extreme pain. She cannot swallow, speak, or breathe without regular mechanical ventilation and suctioning of her secretions. She cannot move her legs or left arm. Slight use of her right arm enables her a to use a computer keyboard to communicate through a voice synthesizer. Her story has been posted to YouTube.

In addition to litigating on their own behalf, she and her husband want the court to permit them to represent all persons who paid for or received spinal manipulation (other than spinal manipulation to treat a diagnosis of acute or sub-acute uncomplicated back pain) from an Alberta chiropractor during the past decade. They also want to have the defendant chiropractor represent a class of Alberta chiropractors who provided inappropriate manipulation. [Barrett S. Stroke caused by neck manipulation triggers class-action lawsuit. Chirobase, June 19, 2008]

http://www.ncahf.org/digest08/08-25.html




And Sharon Mathiason, mother of Laurie Jean Mathiason who died in 1998 a few days after having her neck adjusted by a Saskatoon chiropractor has decided to resume her battle to have neck manipulation banned:
"We don't want to see any more deaths. This is just a belief system. There is no science to it," Sharon Mathiason said as she compiled packages of information in her living room to be sent to various politicians this week.

-snip-

The Mathiasons settled a lawsuit in 2001 against a Saskatoon chiropractic clinic out of court. Details were not disclosed and the chiropractors did not accept responsibility in Laurie Jean's death.

-snip-

Mathiason said she and others are sending out booklets of information to provincial politicians this week, demanding that neck manipulations and other chiropractic practices be banned. They'd also like to see Saskatchewan Health stop subsidizing the practice.

Other provinces, such as Ontario and British Columbia, have recently cut off such subsidies, Mathiason said. The first step is to have a meeting with Saskatchewan Health Minister Don McMorris, she said. If changes aren't made, Mathiason said they'll find a way to attach Saskatchewan chiropractic "victims" to the Alberta suit or launch something similar here.
"The government has to stop paying for this. Why are they spending millions every year on this?" Mathiason said. "The health-care system needs money. Well, here's a way to save lots of money."

McMorris did not respond to an interview request. The Chiropractors' Association of Saskatchewan said this was a matter for the Alberta chiropractors' association and declined further comment.

http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/news/local/story.html?id=4b04dbff-93c5-45cb-928a-736d3e2993e1




Finally, the following are the latest comments from neurologist Steven Novella. They pretty much demolish the chiropractic arguments:
For those cherry-pickers out there here is a recent systematic review of published literature on chiropractic manipulation and VBA dissection: http://jrsm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/full/100/7/330

Read it. It reviews multiple studies showing an association between cervical manipulation and VBA stroke - even when you control for neck pain. Also, in many reported cases the stroke occurs within 30 minutes of the manipulation.
I acknowledge that overall VBA stroke is a rare occurrence. I also acknowledge that some people may go to a chiropractor for the neck pain they have from an existing VBA dissection. But this does not appear to be all cases, and also even in cases where this is true - the worst thing you can do to someone who has a VBA dissection is manipulate their neck. Further, a proper medical exam may reveal that the neck pain is due to VBA dissection and then proper treatment may prevent a stroke.

The bottom line is this - without adequate evidence for the efficacy of neck manipulation the risk of rare severe outcomes (including stroke and death) is unacceptable.

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=316

[richardm]

Don't know about Canada, but in the US this would never get certified as a class.

Why not?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Bump.

The CTV (The Canadian Television Network) news show W-5 has just broadcast an up to date report on Mrs Nette's case, including interviews and reports of other cases. Quite well done in MHO.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081113/wfive_chiro_081113/20081115?hub=WFive

Fact or fallacy
Are chiropractors helping -- or hurting -- Canadians? W-FIVE investigates the controversial debate, argued by medical doctors, chiropractors, patients and lawyers, over the safety and science behind chiropractic therapy.


The whole show is available on line from the above page.

[Blue Wode]

An update.

Gregory John Stiles’ 7-page Statement of Defence is now online. Unsurprisingly, he is denying “each and every allegation”:
http://www.ctv.ca/generic/WebSpecials/pdf/StatementofDefenceofDrStiles.pdf

Interestingly, the Defence Statement refers to the Nettes’ Amended Statement of Claim. If anybody has a copy of it please post it.

For a summary of the lawsuit, including a link to the original Statement of Claim, see here:
http://www.chirobase.org/08Legal/nette.html

[Blue Wode]

Does anyone know why the government of Alberta is going this route on Monday?

Alberta gov't. seeks to dismiss $500 million lawsuit by chiropractic patient
By THE CANADIAN PRESS – 8 hours ago

EDMONTON — The Alberta government is expected to go court Monday in a bid to derail a $500 million class action lawsuit filed by a woman who claims she was severely injured during a visit to a chiropractor.

Sandra Nette of Edmonton filed the lawsuit last year against the province and the Alberta College and Association of Chiropractors.

In her statement of claim, Nette says she received an upper neck adjustment that ruptured her vertebral arteries, causing strokes that left her paralyzed.

The lawsuit alleges Alberta chiropractors put the lives and health of their patients at risk by subjecting them to inappropriate and non-beneficial adjustments of their spines and necks.

In the statement, Nette says the association and the government should have been aware that such spine manipulations are without scientific justification and pose a threat to people.

Statements of claim contain allegations that have not been proven in court.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5gDAOwSInvxLHWUm0E-7lzQuDXoUw

[Pipirr]

It's because the suit also names the province of Alberta, and not just the chiropractor that snapped her neck. I would guess the province doesn't want any part of it.

[Blue Wode]

Sandra Nette's lawyer says that the Alberta government is betraying citizens’ health as it tries to escape a proposed class-action lawsuit:
“You can’t just wash your hands of this,” said Philip Tinkler, lawyer for Sandra Nette.

At issue is the government’s responsibility to enforce proper chiropractic practices.

Nette says she suffered multiple strokes and paralysis after chiropractic treatments meant to “improve her health and wellness,” according to her lawyers’ press release.

She’s leading a $500-million class-action lawsuit against chiropractor Gregory John Stiles, the Alberta College and Association of Chiropractors and the government.

The province will appeal to a judge today to be dropped as a defendant in the case, confirmed Jay O’Neill, spokesperson for Alberta Justice.

He could not give the reasons for why the government wants out. Those will come out today, he said.

The government should actually be on side with his client, said Tinkler, in speaking out against chiropractors who recommend treatment to healthy people.

“We allege the government had a duty to intervene,” said Tinkler.

His client was diagnosed with subluxations - health problems supposedly caused by spinal misalignments - by Stiles, the Edmonton chiropractor named in the suit.

“It’s a fictional, clinically irrelevant diagnosis,” said Tinkler.

The suit alleges the prescribed upper neck adjustments ruptured Sandra’s right and left vertebral arteries, “disrupting blood flow to her brain and causing a cascade of strokes,” said her lawyers.

Within an hour of the treatment, she was left a tetraplegic.

Stiles is on a list of chiropractors recommended on the Alberta College and Association of Chiropractors.

The government created the laws that licence chiropractors, said Tinkler, giving the college its powers.

So, the government should step in and put an end to treatments of subluxations, he argued.

More...
http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/edmonton/2009/06/21/9881931.html




Full details of the class-action lawsuit here:
http://www.chirobase.org/08Legal/nette.html

[Eddie Dane]

Well, I'm going to mail everyone I know that Youtube link.

Man, this is shocking and depressing.

[Blue Wode]

Judge reserves decision on chiropractic lawsuit
http://www.inews880.com/Channels/Reg/LocalNews/story.aspx?ID=1105792

[shuttlt]

What nasty things she's saying about chiropractic. I wonder that the BCA don't decide to round of the good work they've been doing for the image of chiropractic by suing her for libel - in the UK courts of course. I'm sure they have a plethora of evidence that chiropractic wasn't responsible.

[shuttlt]

Is paralysis one of the 10% of conditions that chiropractic can't treat then? That is kind of ironic.

[shadron]

But how many patients would back out at that point and how many would risk it?

Hopefully, the target should be less the patients, and more the student going into medicine. That is the only way, in the long run, that chiropractic will be eliminated as a source of injury. Somehow, it would be useful if Singh's book could be made mandatory reading for anyone with the inclination.

Then again, I don't suppose some bankrupt practices would hurt either, as long as people don't have to get injured to do it.

[blutoski]

Hopefully, the target should be less the patients, and more the student going into medicine. That is the only way, in the long run, that chiropractic will be eliminated as a source of injury. Somehow, it would be useful if Singh's book could be made mandatory reading for anyone with the inclination.

Then again, I don't suppose some bankrupt practices would hurt either, as long as people don't have to get injured to do it.

I'm pretty sure this would not be legal in the US or Canada.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons and the Medical Associations are forbidden to prevent their doctors from regarding chiropractic as anything less than an allied health profession.

When they have made such moves in the past, they have been accused of antitrust, and the government has ruled in favour of chiropractic.

[BenBurch]

Is paralysis one of the 10% of conditions that chiropractic can't treat then? That is kind of ironic.

Oh, I know people paralyzed from the neck down who have gone to chiros to try to cure them. One wound up with several broken bones.

[bickerer]

Considering that the Minister of Science IS a chiropractor, the Canadian Gov't isn't likely to change their rulings in favor of them anytime soon, either. It makes me weep a little bit..

[shadron]

I'm pretty sure this would not be legal in the US or Canada.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons and the Medical Associations are forbidden to prevent their doctors from regarding chiropractic as anything less than an allied health profession.

When they have made such moves in the past, they have been accused of antitrust, and the government has ruled in favour of chiropractic.

Anti-trust? Interesting - I'd think it would be the opposite. They can't "complete" by propaganda, then?

[blutoski]

Anti-trust? Interesting - I'd think it would be the opposite. They can't "complete" by propaganda, then?

It's actually a very important ruling, going back several decades.

The decision was that the College of Physicians and Surgeons is not allowed to sanction its members for obtaining DC degrees, or for referring patients to DCs.

The reasoning is that by doing so, they are unfairly protecting their profession at the expense of another profession. The determination was that this kind of activity was antitrust.

Personally, I disagree, but it's done.

[SkeptiChick]

It's actually a very important ruling, going back several decades.

The decision was that the College of Physicians and Surgeons is not allowed to sanction its members for obtaining DC degrees, or for referring patients to DCs.

The reasoning is that by doing so, they are unfairly protecting their profession at the expense of another profession. The determination was that this kind of activity was antitrust.

Personally, I disagree, but it's done.My problem with that decision is that it assumes that chiropractors actually have a legitimate profession.

I mean, it's not against the law for stores to sanction their competitors for selling stolen goods, or for referring their customers to people who sell stolen goods... Why? Because selling stolen goods is illegal.

Personally, I hope this lawsuit sticks. It would set a legal precedent that would allow chiropractors to be called out as being the scam artists that they are.

[ponderingturtle]

My problem with that decision is that it assumes that chiropractors actually have a legitimate profession.

Legaly they do. Laws and morals so rarely intersect.

[JJM]

My problem with that decision is that it assumes that chiropractors actually have a legitimate profession. {snip}If I may, Wilk v. AMA (ca. 1988) didn't hinge on chiropracty as a profession, it was decided on 'restraint of trade' (i.e., business).

Chiros love to cite that case as a vindication of the legitimacy of their work. When one points-out that the judge wrote that the AMA had ample reason to crticize the legitimacy of chiro, the chiros then contradict themselves and respond that a judge is not qualified to make such a determination.

[blutoski]

My problem with that decision is that it assumes that chiropractors actually have a legitimate profession.

It does come across this way, but as ponderingturtle indicated, the ruling was more detailed.




I mean, it's not against the law for stores to sanction their competitors for selling stolen goods, or for referring their customers to people who sell stolen goods... Why? Because selling stolen goods is illegal.

Note that chiropractic is legal, though.




Personally, I hope this lawsuit sticks. It would set a legal precedent that would allow chiropractors to be called out as being the scam artists that they are.

Hard to say. The issue right now is more about the government's responsibilities in regulating health professions. The political momentum in Alberta and Canada in general is toward assigning the government fewer reponsibilities, so the victim is at a disadvantage. My impression is that the political attitude is that it's caveat emptor and that's the way they like it.

[BenBurch]

I just learned that one of my online friends was in the hospital in a coma with seizures for months from a chiropractic manipulation.

He did not sue because the chiro was a friend of a friend, and I think I just convinced him to change that decision.

He is now talking with another friend who is a newly-minted lawyer and they are putting together their case.

[blutoski]

I just learned that one of my online friends was in the hospital in a coma with seizures for months from a chiropractic manipulation.

He did not sue because the chiro was a friend of a friend, and I think I just convinced him to change that decision.

He is now talking with another friend who is a newly-minted lawyer and they are putting together their case.

Tell your lawyer friend to think about soliciting victims for a class-action suit.

[BenBurch]

Tell your lawyer friend to think about soliciting victims for a class-action suit.

Do they have those in Oz?

[SkeptiChick]

Legaly they do. Laws and morals so rarely intersect.

It does come across this way, but as ponderingturtle indicated, the ruling was more detailed.

Note that chiropractic is legal, though.And the point of my post was that I feel that chiropractic shouldn't be legal.

[JJM]

If I may, Wilk v. AMA (ca. 1988) didn't hinge on chiropracty as a profession, it was decided on 'restraint of trade' (i.e., business).

Chiros love to cite that case as a vindication of the legitimacy of their work. When one points-out that the judge wrote that the AMA had ample reason to crticize the legitimacy of chiro, the chiros then contradict themselves and respond that a judge is not qualified to make such a determination.

[snip} Note that chiropractic is legal, though.The point is that it should not be, it is based on 19th century ignorance that has been superseded by science.