Does structural and cranial really differ that much?

Some say that Structural osteopaths feel they relate better to chiropractors and physiotherapist than they do to cranial practitioners.

My view is that it is the principles (what make osteopathy what osteopathy is) rather than the techniques used that should hold us together. But who applies these principles nowadays? I meet more and more osteopaths who don't. For me, the problem comes from the schooling of osteopathy. Personally, i came out qualified not understanding the relevance of the principles, its only after I left and didn't have the stress of knowing everything medical/orthopedic (tissue specific diagnosis) that they started to sink in. If only the osteopathic concept were taught more thoroughly, and better applied in clinic, perhaps the osteopathic community would glue a bit more.

Treating the low back for low back pain (or treating the tissues causing pain) is indeed physiotherapy (nothing against physios, they're great at that). Treating the biomechanical cause of this low back pain is osteopathy. That should be common ground for all osteopaths.

Then, some may want to go a step further and look at the external (lifestyle and diet), psychological, emotional, and more spiritual components/causes... Being even more holistic, why not?

Treatments: 276

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by melonfarmer on September 19, 2009 at 12:42pm
In answer to your question I would say yes.

from my limited perspective Cranial folks seem to inhabit a different universe to me. reading some of the cranial chat about buzzing lesions and logging into the therapuetic tide seems more akin to magic and faith healing to my unenlightened view...

Again with all respect to our esteemed crainial brothers and sisters, from the outside cranial practice does seem slightly cultish and based around strongly held belief systems. There seems to be lots of "guru" led practice with followers of different cranial belief systems Upledger Jealous Sutherland etc etc.

Despite many many converstations with cranial folk and asking on here I have still not had a explanation (that I can understand in a physiological sense)for the mechanism of how holding the head can influence visceral function or how the IVM works.
Permalink Reply by Clement Rhein on September 19, 2009 at 2:41pm
"buzzing lesions and logging into the therapuetic tide"

This is to do with the how the principles are applied (the techniques used), but the root principles themselves are the same, its still osteopathy.


"cranial practice does seem slightly cultish and based around strongly held belief systems. There seems to be lots of "guru" led practice with followers of different cranial belief systems Upledger Jealous Sutherland etc etc."

Doesn't this tend to happen in all system dealing with the unseen?


"or how the IVM works."
No body knows! :-) There are only theories, like the tides from Sutherland (more spiritual and wholistic) or the SCF pressure change from Upledger (more scientific and reductionist). As a practitioner, if a theory makes sense to you, and in practice you feel that it works, what more do you need?

I wouldn't discard Sutherland's tides theory as magical so quickly. Doesn't the moon affects humans as well? I know it definitively affects me...
Permalink Reply by Leonardo Rios on September 20, 2009 at 3:29pm
Clement,

I surely understand what you mean and I can tell the problem it's not the teaching but the understanding and the acceptance of the concept. You know this is something that demands a accurate sense of touch and what I think it's the hardest, an open mind to be able to feel what's expected.
You would agree when I say it's easier to feel the structural disfunctions and treat'em. On the other hand you know we choose what's easy for us to do and understand most of the time. It's not everybody who's ready to ignore what was learnt before and embrace something so different and hard to comprehend.
I think there shouldn't be differentiation between cranial and structural. We're supposed to do both so we should be both cranial and structural osteopaths.
You can only hope every osteopath follows the principles and respect each other.
Permalink Reply by Clement Rhein on September 20, 2009 at 4:59pm
"I can tell the problem it's not the teaching but the understanding and the acceptance of the concept"

On one hand, if it is a teaching problem then there will a be a general trend in the outcome i.e. a significant amount of students not understanding and acquiring the learning outcome (e.g. the Osteopathic concept). The way to pick up on this trend is to test student's understanding, hence exams. I came out not grasping the osteopathic concept, but still passed, so from my perspective this trend cannot be picked up because the correct testing is not in place.

On the other hand, if it is a student problem ("not being able to accept the concept") there should most probably not be a trend at the end, just the odd individual(s) not grasping the concept. However, I would expect these individuals to drop out early on once they realized that osteopathy's not for them.

Anyway, at the end of the day, a student can graduate without grasping the concept, and that's a teaching (testing) issue.

I would argue (with myself, yes, why not :-)) that it is not the faculty's to blame entirely. Even-though each different schools have their own styles or emphasis, there are still the basic (the building blocks) requirements for their course to be validated. If these requirements are not meet: no validation, so cannot practice as an osteopath when graduated, so no students enroll, so no school. These requirements are obviously all to do with safe osteopathic practice, which isn't a bad thing, but they are certainly not to do with full comprehension of the osteopathic concept, and that's the problem.

GOsC is solely involved in the enforcement of patient safety, not the preservation of osteopathic principles, now polluted by medicine. A system with no solution (?).


Yes an open mind is so useful, but my view is if you're not taught the way you need to (more or less different for everyone) then you will not learn and understand what is expected. So i feel its the teacher's responsibility to engage students on what they can build up from. That's the difference that makes a teacher excellent.

"I think there shouldn't be differentiation between cranial and structural"
I think there is differentiation between cranial and structural, but in the technical sense only, their root is the same: Osteopathy.

"We're supposed to do both so we should be both cranial and structural osteopaths."
Why? How does personal freedom fits into that? What if you cannot feel the IVM, even-though you try (it happens to some).
Permalink Reply by Hume O'Rous on September 21, 2009 at 7:02am
Hi Leonardo,

In another SM forum this issue about evidence for the IVM has been unfortunately avoided. The problem many have is grasping (if that's the correct term) the model that 'cranial' osteopaths propose.

Until there is a defined and verifiable proposal to allow neutral observers to understand the cranial concept, the issue will remain dangerous and divisive within the osteopathic community.

It really is up to cranial advocates to start producing an evidence base for their tidal dreams or the concept will ebb and flow out of the scientific reckoning.
Permalink Reply by Hume O'Rous on September 21, 2009 at 7:11am
Hi Rob,

I hear what you say about the evidence base for the IVM. Given the scarce published evidence on PubMed, what would you think if you compared psychotherapy, homeopathy and cranial groups on the treatment of conditions such as fibromyalgia, IBS, migraine or other conditions where cortical input is part of the illness?

Also, given there is a THM wave, how can the practitioner's contact 'alter' the patient's own wave?
Permalink Reply by Dick Wyatt on September 21, 2009 at 12:04pm
Hi James!

You've raised several important points. Regarding the cultishness built around the known originators within the Cranial (parag. 2) - that's what people (as a society) do. I think the situation in Cranial compares well with any other high-sounding sociomedical phenomenon, and probably with other sociosignificant areas also. Clustering round figures of importance is a basic human trait - probably, in the simplest terms a survival urge. It doesn't apply to the Cranial only.

To address parags. 1 + 3: perception of the Cranial is not - cannot be - a uniform procedure. To begin: the population, of whom Ost's represent a tiny, but ordinary fraction are divisible into linear, visual and some lesser groups of cognitive aptitude, all of whom (at the BSO) will be introduced to the Cranial. How, then will their perception be standardized?

We then have to think about how their mass, if connected to the pt.'s will vary the perception further - and the innate stiffness within that mass, which is harnessed & put to use as 'listening posts', also a confusing variable. All of this, trying to feel a tiny amplitude which is, like an iceberg merely the tip of perception...

In my opinion, the Cranial works most efficiently via the fascia - and how is the practitioner connected? The fascia is of utmost importance in the physical structure. If there's a single underlying base format of cell agglomeration in the body, the fascia probably takes the biscuit. So we can consider the prac. & the pt. as two masses of fascia without, perhaps too much demurral. :)

We've discussed, in the past how the mechanism of the IMS may be generated, and this is difficult to prove largely due to the ethical considerations of hominoid vivisection. I conjecture, however that the matter is the summation of cell-phasing, i.e. tissue-intrinsic cycles of pumping/motility. It follows. A resultant rhythmic wave can do work and is thereby useful, whereas an unphased, unsummated coruscation of tiny individual cell-cycles would serve little or nothing.

Now consider how two masses in contact share - they *must* share - their intrinsic energies. If there's a good enough contact - and we made this good, remember? with our 'listening posts' etc. - the movements in one will translate to the other; this is basic Newtonian physics, and we don't need to invoke anything more obscure; we're quite small, our gravities don't intercede; there's probably nothing else going on.

What the prac. successfully (read 'inevitably') receives from the pt., then has to be *felt*. There's probably nothing about cranial perception that can't be felt by anyone osteopathic, but it's slight, and belief (at these very small amplitudes) can interfere - as can too-bright light, noise, h/a and many other factors.

I think that by the time student Osts have tuned down their corticospinal inhibitions, they could all do it. That many don't may say more about *ignoring* palpation than it does about *imagining* palpation - though either, in my experience may be true. There's still a believing group left in the room, however and if they *agree* on what they're feeling - which they can - they've got some collected anecdotal evidence. And this is a scientific beginning.

I consider that in my case, sensitively-palpated access to the pt's fascial continuum is initially correlated in my cognition with the learned anatomy. That I'm at the highly-visual end of the cognitive variation-groupings means that I receive these findings processed (in my own sensorium) into a visual signal; the *learned* anatomy compared with the *cranially-palpated* anatomy.

It's not so difficult to feel one's way into someone else's fascial continuum; after all, they're very much like oneself, and you've learned all about it. It's how the signals summate in one's own sensorium which makes most of the difference, and it took me several years to understand what my senses were showing me. The better I understood, the more effective I became. Und so weiter.

All the best
Dick
Permalink Reply by Clement Rhein on September 21, 2009 at 8:01pm
Its physics Donald, and if i recall right, its called attenuation (as Rob mentioned above). Funny enough I have read an article about this exact thing today, in the last IJOM (yes, I'm rather late reading it :-)), that explains clearly what could be happening with regards to vibrations and their significance... Perhaps this one will make some sense James. I'll post the IJOM issue number tomorrow.
Permalink Reply by Hume O'Rous on September 23, 2009 at 1:03am
Hi Clement,

The subjects of vibration and movement patterns can be used to explain almost anything in the physical world. They are surely observations of the physical world, adhere to the Laws of Physics, and are as such subject to being measured and quantified. This discussion is not about this aspect of Physical Science, it's about the claim that cranial techniques exist as a distinct clinical entity, and can stand up to scrutiny and still remain credible. Many CAM subjects are failing to do this, and as a result will no longer exist in 20 years time as they need to be defined and credible to continue.

Rob hasn't as yet come back on my earlier post, so perhaps you would have a stab....

Given there is a THM wave, how can the practitioner's contact 'alter' the patient's own wave?
also..

What's the difference in the laying on of hands and cranial osteopathy?

.... please don't say 'Physics' as that would be the wrong answer!

Can I also say at this juncture that I'm fairly neutral on the subject of the IVM, and don't wish to shoot down in flames anyone who advocates it.
Permalink Reply by Quatermass on September 23, 2009 at 3:42pm
Interesting this. I'd have gone a level higher and say the priority surely is first to attempt to prove/disprove the most important and general hypothesis: that the proclaimed therapeutic method actually has an effect on health and disease. How should be the secondary question,
Permalink Reply by Clement Rhein on September 23, 2009 at 6:51pm
Well, regarding your comment Donald, the answer iiiiiiis... Physics! Alright i'm joking ;-). I think you'll find some information you're looking for in the IJOM, Vol 12 Number 2 June09, Letter to Editor. Its just one explanation, but its one step in the right direction.

However, I'm rather confused Donald, if cranial osteopathy can be explained with physics, and quantified with the appropriate testing, why is this discussion not about Physical Science (with regards to Cranial)?
Permalink Reply by Hume O'Rous on September 23, 2009 at 8:18pm
Cranial osteopathy is not able to be explained fully at present, I wouldn't have thought. What's surely happening at present is that the conceptual basis of the IVM is being explored at the most elementary level.

It may be that nothing comes of it and it turns out to be only a theory without tangible and predictable clinical benefit behind it. I'm prepared to accept that the IVM model has value and may exist in one form or another... would you be prepared to accept that it may prove to be a false encounter.... a touch of apophenia?

Don't you find the idea that you need to look to quantum physics for possible explanations for the existence of a clinical theory kind of peculiar and a possible weakness in the entire hypothesis?

How about cranial v laying on hands? Any comment.... will go and read IJOM now.

▶ Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2012   Created by Ronan O'Brien.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service