OMT schools of thought: What’s in a name?

Perhaps the time has come for OMT practitioners to cease naming treatments according to a school of thought. The principles of treatment are far more important than the name of the practitioner who first developed the technique. It is not important that a technique, for example, was originally part of the “Kaltenborn”, “Cyriax”, “Maitland”, or any other method. Such compartmentalization of clinical practice hinders the development and growth of the OMT profession. The best OMT practitioners do not restrict their practice to a single approach or school of thought, but rather develop expertise in many systems. Master clinicians utilize techniques derived from many sources, modifying, combining and refining their repertoire of techniques into a unique application for each individual patient. As OMT practice so evolves, the principles of treatment which encompass all schools of thought will more clearly emerge.

Freddy Kaltenborn and Albert Cramer teaching a Chiropractic course to Nordic physicians in Oslo, Norway, 1959. (Picture courtesy Arbeiderbladet, 1959)
Freddy Kaltenborn and Albert Cramer teaching a Chiropractic course to Nordic physicians in Oslo, Norway, 1959. (Picture courtesy Arbeiderbladet, 1959)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.