Chiropractic is a dodgy area. It sells itself as mainstream medicine, but it doesn’t really have empirical support in the way we expect real medicine to. There are certainly some areas in which chiropractic helps people, but as you say, there are areas that are quite clearly open to question.

I personally think that if you don’t believe in something then it is dishonest to ask people to pay for you to do it for them. So if you are going to be a chiropractor, and you arent 100% behind it, then Id say dont do it.

I agree with yoonhang . . .

I am in my third year of TCM school (Traditional Chinese Medicine), and recognize that some of the theories are a bit dubious.

Nothing says you have to accept everything you are taught. You are aware of chiropractic’s pain-relieving qualities, and it sounds as if that is the main reason for your desire to learn it–so focus on that.

For what it’s worth, I have seen chiro have a positive impact on such things as frequent urinary urges, IBS, and migraines. The key to the success is the origin of the problem. IF the problem is a miscommunication due to misalignment along the spine, chiro works very well; If not, then the impact is minimal.

Also, there are (as I’m sure you’re aware) different schools of thought within chiro. Maybe you want to focus on the “gentle manipulation” theories rather than the “bone cruncher” theories? Keep looking around–just because you are a Chiropractor doesn’t mean you need to be orthodox about it.

If you complete the course you may be a chiropractor but that doesn’t by default make you chiropractic in thinking.

Once you qualify you can practice as you see fit and can loose the aspects you disagree with.
I did consider Chiropractic but trained as an osteopath instead because I beleived (and still do Beleive) in the Osteopathic model.
As you are in year 1 if you wanted to change it wouldn’t be too much of a waste of time so far as you are only 1/5th into the course.
You could try Osteopathy. Much of the stuff taught in the 1st year on both courses would be foundation bread and butter stuff like A&P + examination techniques and palpation so it is likely to be transferable and you may even be able to go into the second year.

Have a think about it and also see some guys in practice and ask them what they think about some of the dubious aspects. If they are also unhappy ask them how they reconciled it.

Edit:
“Chiro is only useful for muscular low back pain. It cannot diagnose, treat or prevent any diseases at all. Why one needs to spend 4 years basically learning to do a specialized version of massage is beyond me.

(Thumbs down prediction :3)”

Skepdoc I’m not going to give you the thumbs down but i am going to comment.
yes I agree the tradition theory behind chiropractic does need reveiwing but your comment on what chiropractic is and does displays the views of someone incredibly ill informed and ignorant.
I speak as someone who’s main competitor is chiropractors. Trust me we would love some of their business and for many of them to cease practice.
Calling chiropractic a specialised form of massage is very far from the mark.

The only relationship between a chiro treatment and a massage is that it is hands on. Chiro’s do use some soft tissue techniques (but also many others) but not as prolonged or in the same way as massage therapists.

Furthermore Chiro’s don’t just learn techniques in 4 years they also learn A&P to a high level, pathology, orhtopadic testing, neuro testing, muscle testing, case history taking and general screening and testing to assess whether the patient in front of them has low back pain from twisting while doing the gardening or from an AAA.
If all that was required was technique and A&P we could all qualify as Chiro’s or osteopaths in 18 month.

It could be argued why did you spend all those years in med school as all you seem to do is legally push drugs?

I wouldn’t say that because in spite of the short falls in the medical system I understand that your training makes you much more than a legalised drug dealer in the pocket of big pharma even though to the ill informed and ignorant that may seem to be the case.