Chiropractor Regulation, Sunset
Jan. 19, 2009
By Jerry Kopel
Research staff of Dept of Regulatory Agencies do a very good job, but
they aren't perfect. Let's examine their 2008 Sunset review of the
Chiropractic Practice Act.
Present law prohibits "colonic irrigation therapy" in the definition of
"chiropractic" CRS 12-33-102 (1) and also in the disciplinary section
CRS 12-33-117(1)(l). In their 2008 Sunset review, DORA labels the
colonic prohibition as part of language it terms "outdated". DORA fails
to explain why chiropractors are forbidden to use that "therapy".
Here is DORA's explanation and my comments: ".... the current definition
includes an unusual provision that eliminates colonic irrigation therapy
from the definition of chiropractic.
"The language was added a number of years ago (Kopel: It was amended to
be even stronger language in 1995) in response to a problem with a
single practitioner (Kopel: it was a chiropractic office, and the
"problem" was the death of six patients and numerous other patients made
"It is very unusual for practice acts to prohibit specific activities in
this manner (Kopel: Not so. See CRS 12-27-105 prohibiting administration
of drugs by midwives.)
On page 8 of DORA's review, the staffer could have, but did not mention
the 1995 Chiropractic amendment to the disciplinary law included
changing "treatment of a patient by colonic irrigation" to add "or
allowing colonic irrigation to be performed at the licensee's premises".
That was added to close a "loophole". Rep. Paul Weissmann is the only
1995 co-sponsor still in legislative office.
The 1984 DORA Chiropractic Sunset Report states "In 1979 and 1980, there
were six deaths and numerous dysentery cases resulting from unsanitary
colonic irrigation equipment used in a Western Slope chiropractic
"This tragedy and other testimony led the chiropractic board to prohibit
the machines from being used unless certain conditions were met, but use
of the machines was not prohibited altogether."
DORA's then-director, Wellington Webb, appeared before our Legislative
Council sub-committee to urge further changes in a 1984 meeting. His
written comments should be in the DORA files on the Chiropractic
Practice Act. He told us:
"I'm sure each of you remembers the six deaths. Although one machine was
responsible for the amoebic dysentery causing all six deaths, research
by the State Department of Health indicated that several types of
colonic irrigation machines are designed in a way that makes it nearly
impossible to clean them properly.
"Also, there is no scientific evidence that colonic therapy actually has
any therapeutic value. So, there is no demonstrated benefit to the
therapy and yet there is clearly a demonstrated potential for harm.
"It is not known how widespread is the use of colonic therapy in the
chiropractic community. It has not been accepted in the medical
community for decades," Webb quoted a health department epidemiologist:
"The majority of persons providing colonic therapy are unlicensed
persons who call themselves colonic therapists". Webb agreed the "ban on
use of the machines would address only part of the problem". But he
"On the other hand, the state has given each licensed chiropractor its
stamp of approval in return for its expectation that a certain quality
of care will be delivered. With respect to colonic irrigations, patients
are paying for service without positive results".
The 2008 DORA report does not include a repeal of disciplinary action
when a chiropractic office uses "colonic irrigation therapy". But the
uninformative editorial comments of "a problem", and "outdated" about
colonic irrigation, if not cleared up and exposed by this column, would
make any retention of the ban unlikely.
Colonoscopy is done by physicians who specialize in gastroenterology.
People who use enemas are warned in print of their potential danger. It
makes sense to continue to ban a treatment such as colonic irrigation if
there is no demonstrated scientific evidence of benefits to the
patients. DORA failed to provide such evidence.
There are 2,640 active chiropractic licensees in Colorado. From July 1,
2002 through June 30, 2007, there have been 364 decisions by the
licensing board on disciplinary issues. There were 231 complaints
Disciplinary actions totaled 133, including 73 dealing with probation or
practice limitations. Of the 133, only 14 were license revocations.
DORA recommends, and I agree, licensees who are complained about should
be required to answer such complaints. Presently they are not "forced"
to answer and, states DORA, "failure to respond ... prevents the board
from obtaining all facts pertinent to the complaint.
"... matters that might otherwise be dismissed may have to be sent to
the investigations unit." DORA suggests failure to respond to a
complaint within a specified time be the basis for a disciplinary
(Jerry Kopel served 22 years in the Colorado House)