Hi there I am a Chiropractor, and wanted to get a consensus on whether my definition of Chiropractic compared to osteopathy needs any amending? Obviously with any generalisation there will be sweeping statements between an osteopath and chiropractor, but I want it to be as accurate as possible.
Comparison of Chiropractic and Osteopathy.
Hi there!
What exactly is your comparison?
In my ignorance and speaking as a "lay person" with limited experience of both my (perceived) difference is
Osteopath : Is mostly concerned with the soft tissue components of the body (somewhat ironic due to the title) and has the basic premise that "soft tissue components decide where bones go"
ie: lengthen, strengthen and manipulate soft tissues correctly and suffciently and intrinsic skeletal issues (bar disease) will resolve themselves
Chiro: the opposite ie "put the bones in place and the soft tissue components will follow" etc.
However please excuse my paraphrasing (and potential ignorance)
Osteopath - correct spinal movement and muscle function = healthy body
Chiropractor - correct spinal and nerve supply allowing the body to heal naturally = correctsignals to and from brain to rest of bpdy.
Tt
Most people that have never been to see an Osteopath tend to have been to have physiotherapy or see a chiropractor which has helped but not got to the source of the problem. By taking a thorough case history and getting to the source of the problem, an Osteopath will be able to help you to recover from most muscular, skeletal, sports, ligament or joint injuries.