Lipstick on a Pig 4

It seems that Mr Yap is not only a member of the Asian Executive Council of the World Federation Chiropractic, but also the Correspondence Officer for The Chiropractic Association (Singapore).


Chiropractors' body all for regulation

DR CHARLES Siow's allusion to the alleged unreported cases of stroke caused and occasioned by chiropractic treatment is moot ('Concerns over titles, X-rays, treatment packages'; Jan 31).

Let us not go down this slippery slope as the same question is equally relevant to any profession, including the medical profession.

A significant portion of the chiropractic curriculum in accredited chiropractic colleges includes radiology. Chiropractors are taught in detail to operate, process and interpret radiological films.
The Chiropractic Association (Singapore), TCAS, has a radiology protocol as part of its ethics, rules and regulations based on international standards. Unfortunately, chiropractors outside our association may not follow the protocol.

As part of our ongoing effort to self-regulate as mandated by the Ministry of Health, TCAS has made a clear stand against unnecessary and large treatment packages. As membership to any professional association is voluntary, we do not have jurisdiction over non- members.
TCAS has maintained that all chiropractors must be graduates of an accredited international college. They also have to show good standing with their previous chiropractic association and they should not have criminal records.

This is the reason TCAS hopes chiropractors will be included in the Allied Health Professions Act to uphold the integrity of practice in Singapore.

We are not against meaningful regulation. Thus, we agree with Dr Yik Keng Yeong's opinion ('Regulate chiropractors'; Forum Online, Jan 31).

The latest studies - The Mercer Report and The Bronfort Study - support chiropractic treatment for its efficacy as well as its cost-effectiveness in neck and lower back pain management.

No professional system can hold a monopoly on health care - we should leave it to the public to decide. Patients' welfare is paramount.

Terrence Yap
Correspondence Officer
The Chiropractic Association (Singapore)


A busy man, Mr Yap must be, and no doubt made busier by the spotlight on chiropractic and the incidence of stroke.

Mr Yap would of course want us to not go down "the slippery slope" of questioning the association between neck manipulation and stroke, seeing as it is other mainstream medical therapy does sometimes cause harm instead of good. But the question is not whether or not other forms of therapy cause strokes, but whether or not neck manipulation, for whatever therapeutic benefits it purports to have, justifies the risk of stroke. If, as Mr Yap once again points out to us, chiropractic has only been found to be effective only for neck and lower back pain, and not the myriad of ailments many chiropracters claim it is good for (and which the Brontford Study has shown it is not), then we need to ask ourselves: is stroke an acceptable risk for neck or lower back pain?

The rest of the arguments for creating a register for chiropracters miss the main issue at hand: chiropratic is a pseudoscience. It does not matter whether a chiropracter is "trained" or "accredited", or indeed eventually "registered" - an astrologer can similarly be "trained", "accredited" and "registered" with a professional body if the law so recognises one, but that says nothing about whether or not astrology actually works.

Faced with such a situation, Mr Yap takes refuge in that same cry that those with no evidence to back their claims do: "leave it to the public to decide".

Of course. Why bother with science when there is such a thing as public opinion, right?