RationalWiki's 2018 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff — we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2018.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $2951Goal: $5000

Wilk vs. AMA

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Against allopathy
Alternative medicine
Icon alt med alt.svg
Unproven articles

Wilk vs. AMA was a US Federal Court case (895 F.2d 352) in which a chiropractor Chester A. Wilk and 4 chiropractor-colleagues sued the American Medical Association for boycotting the practice of chiropractic "medicine".

The case[edit]

In 1976 the 5 chiropractors filed an anti-trust lawsuit because they claimed that the AMA illegally boycotted the practice of chiropractic medicine. The reasoning behind the boycott was that the field of chiropractic "medicine" is both faith-based (or pseudo-scientific) and that chiropractors generally do more harm than good with health care.

The end result[edit]

In 1987 the Federal judge Susan Getzendanner ruled in favor of chiropractors. The judge made it clear that she was not ruling either for or against the efficacy of chiropractic treatment, since the trial evidence was primarily anecdotal. The ruling was that the AMA unfairly competed against chiropractors because it prevented its members from recommending chiropractic services.[1] The ruling was upheld by a Federal appeals court. It was appealed to the US Supreme Court 3 times; each time the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal.

If the AMA had presented better scientific evidence that chiropractors harmed patients, they might have had a favorable outcome from the trial. As the judge observed the evidence, the AMA seemed to be more interested in financial aspects rather than patient well-being. Since the time of the trial, some peer-reviewed scientific publications have become available that do show potential dangers (e.g. stroke) from chiropractic treatments (see the main article on chiropractic).

External links[edit]

References[edit]