回顾改变脊椎指压治疗行业的诉讼第7部分:诉讼和判决。

IF 0.7 Q4 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Claire D Johnson, Bart N Green
{"title":"回顾改变脊椎指压治疗行业的诉讼第7部分:诉讼和判决。","authors":"Claire D Johnson,&nbsp;Bart N Green","doi":"10.7899/JCE-21-28","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This is the seventh paper in a series that explores the historical events surrounding the Wilk v American Medical Association (AMA) lawsuit in which the plaintiffs argued that the AMA, the American Hospital Association, and other medical specialty societies violated antitrust law by restraining chiropractors' business practices. The purpose of this paper is to provide a summary of the lawsuit that was first filed in 1976 and concluded with the final denial of appeal in 1990.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This historical research study used a phenomenological approach to qualitative inquiry into the conflict between regular medicine and chiropractic and the events before, during, and after a legal dispute at the time of modernization of the chiropractic profession. Our methods included obtaining primary and secondary data sources. The final narrative recount was developed into 8 papers following a successive time line. This paper, the seventh of the series, considers the information of the 2 trials and the judge's decision.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>By the time the first trial began in 1980, the AMA had already changed its anti-chiropractic stance to allow medical doctors to associate with chiropractors if they wished. In the first trial, the chiropractors were not able to overcome the very stigma that organized medicine worked so hard to create over many decades, which resulted in the jury voting in favor of the AMA and other defendants. The plaintiffs, Drs Patricia Arthur, James Bryden, Michael Pedigo, and Chester Wilk, continued with their pursuit of justice. Their lawyer, Mr George McAndrews, fought for an appeal and was allowed a second trial. The second trial was a bench trial in which Judge Susan Getzendanner declared her final judgment that \"the American Medical Association (AMA) and its members participated in a conspiracy against chiropractors in violation of the nation's antitrust laws.\" After the AMA's appeal was denied by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in 1990, the decision was declared permanent. The injunction that was ordered by the judge was published in the January 1, 1988, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The efforts by Mr McAndrews and his legal team and the persistence of the plaintiffs and countless others in the chiropractic profession concluded in Judge Getzendanner's decision, which prevented the AMA from rebuilding barriers or developing another boycott. The chiropractic profession was ready to move into its next century.</p>","PeriodicalId":44516,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Chiropractic Education","volume":"35 S1","pages":"97-116"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8493524/pdf/i2374-250X-35-S1-97.pdf","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Looking back at the lawsuit that transformed the chiropractic profession part 7: Lawsuit and decisions.\",\"authors\":\"Claire D Johnson,&nbsp;Bart N Green\",\"doi\":\"10.7899/JCE-21-28\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This is the seventh paper in a series that explores the historical events surrounding the Wilk v American Medical Association (AMA) lawsuit in which the plaintiffs argued that the AMA, the American Hospital Association, and other medical specialty societies violated antitrust law by restraining chiropractors' business practices. The purpose of this paper is to provide a summary of the lawsuit that was first filed in 1976 and concluded with the final denial of appeal in 1990.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This historical research study used a phenomenological approach to qualitative inquiry into the conflict between regular medicine and chiropractic and the events before, during, and after a legal dispute at the time of modernization of the chiropractic profession. Our methods included obtaining primary and secondary data sources. The final narrative recount was developed into 8 papers following a successive time line. This paper, the seventh of the series, considers the information of the 2 trials and the judge's decision.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>By the time the first trial began in 1980, the AMA had already changed its anti-chiropractic stance to allow medical doctors to associate with chiropractors if they wished. In the first trial, the chiropractors were not able to overcome the very stigma that organized medicine worked so hard to create over many decades, which resulted in the jury voting in favor of the AMA and other defendants. The plaintiffs, Drs Patricia Arthur, James Bryden, Michael Pedigo, and Chester Wilk, continued with their pursuit of justice. Their lawyer, Mr George McAndrews, fought for an appeal and was allowed a second trial. The second trial was a bench trial in which Judge Susan Getzendanner declared her final judgment that \\\"the American Medical Association (AMA) and its members participated in a conspiracy against chiropractors in violation of the nation's antitrust laws.\\\" After the AMA's appeal was denied by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in 1990, the decision was declared permanent. The injunction that was ordered by the judge was published in the January 1, 1988, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The efforts by Mr McAndrews and his legal team and the persistence of the plaintiffs and countless others in the chiropractic profession concluded in Judge Getzendanner's decision, which prevented the AMA from rebuilding barriers or developing another boycott. The chiropractic profession was ready to move into its next century.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44516,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Chiropractic Education\",\"volume\":\"35 S1\",\"pages\":\"97-116\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8493524/pdf/i2374-250X-35-S1-97.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Chiropractic Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7899/JCE-21-28\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Chiropractic Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7899/JCE-21-28","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

目的:这是探讨围绕威尔克诉美国医学协会(AMA)诉讼的历史事件的系列文章中的第七篇,在该诉讼中,原告认为AMA、美国医院协会和其他医学专业协会违反了反垄断法,限制了脊医的商业行为。本文的目的是对1976年首次提起并于1990年最终驳回上诉的诉讼进行概述。方法:本历史研究采用现象学方法定性探究常规医学与脊椎指压疗法之间的冲突,以及在脊椎指压专业现代化时期发生法律纠纷之前、期间和之后发生的事件。我们的方法包括获得第一手和第二手数据来源。最后的叙述叙述是按照连续的时间线发展成8篇论文。本文是该系列的第七篇,主要考察了这两起案件的审判信息和法官的判决。结果:到1980年第一次试验开始时,美国医学协会已经改变了反对脊椎指压疗法的立场,允许医生在愿意的情况下与脊椎指压疗法联系。在第一次审判中,脊医们无法克服几十年来有组织的医学努力制造的耻辱,这导致陪审团投票支持美国医学协会和其他被告。原告帕特丽夏·亚瑟博士、詹姆斯·布莱登、迈克尔·博科罗和切斯特·威尔克继续他们对正义的追求。他们的律师乔治·麦克安德鲁斯(George McAndrews)争取上诉,并获准进行第二次审判。第二次审判是法官席审判,法官Susan Getzendanner宣布了她的最终判决:“美国医学协会(AMA)及其成员参与了一场针对脊医的阴谋,违反了国家的反垄断法。”1990年,美国医学会的上诉被第七巡回上诉法院驳回后,该判决被宣布为永久性判决。法官下达的禁令发表在1988年1月1日的《美国医学会杂志》上。结论:麦克安德鲁斯先生和他的法律团队的努力,以及原告和无数脊椎按摩专业人士的坚持不懈,最终促成了格兹丹纳法官的裁决,阻止了美国医学协会重新设置障碍或发起另一场抵制。脊椎按摩专业已经准备好进入下一个世纪。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Looking back at the lawsuit that transformed the chiropractic profession part 7: Lawsuit and decisions.

Objective: This is the seventh paper in a series that explores the historical events surrounding the Wilk v American Medical Association (AMA) lawsuit in which the plaintiffs argued that the AMA, the American Hospital Association, and other medical specialty societies violated antitrust law by restraining chiropractors' business practices. The purpose of this paper is to provide a summary of the lawsuit that was first filed in 1976 and concluded with the final denial of appeal in 1990.

Methods: This historical research study used a phenomenological approach to qualitative inquiry into the conflict between regular medicine and chiropractic and the events before, during, and after a legal dispute at the time of modernization of the chiropractic profession. Our methods included obtaining primary and secondary data sources. The final narrative recount was developed into 8 papers following a successive time line. This paper, the seventh of the series, considers the information of the 2 trials and the judge's decision.

Results: By the time the first trial began in 1980, the AMA had already changed its anti-chiropractic stance to allow medical doctors to associate with chiropractors if they wished. In the first trial, the chiropractors were not able to overcome the very stigma that organized medicine worked so hard to create over many decades, which resulted in the jury voting in favor of the AMA and other defendants. The plaintiffs, Drs Patricia Arthur, James Bryden, Michael Pedigo, and Chester Wilk, continued with their pursuit of justice. Their lawyer, Mr George McAndrews, fought for an appeal and was allowed a second trial. The second trial was a bench trial in which Judge Susan Getzendanner declared her final judgment that "the American Medical Association (AMA) and its members participated in a conspiracy against chiropractors in violation of the nation's antitrust laws." After the AMA's appeal was denied by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in 1990, the decision was declared permanent. The injunction that was ordered by the judge was published in the January 1, 1988, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Conclusion: The efforts by Mr McAndrews and his legal team and the persistence of the plaintiffs and countless others in the chiropractic profession concluded in Judge Getzendanner's decision, which prevented the AMA from rebuilding barriers or developing another boycott. The chiropractic profession was ready to move into its next century.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Chiropractic Education
Journal of Chiropractic Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
37.50%
发文量
52
期刊介绍: The Journal of Chiropractic Education is an international, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to publishing research and scholarly articles pertaining to education theory, pedagogy, methodologies, practice, and other content relevant to the health professions academe. Journal contents are of interest to teachers, researchers, clinical educators, administrators, and students.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信