Authors: Seth S Leopold Lee Beadling Mark C Gebhardt Terence J Gioe Benjamin K Potter Clare M Rimnac Montri D Wongworawat
Publish Date: 2014/07/25
Volume: 472, Issue: 9, Pages: 2561-2563
Abstract
The authors certify that they or any members of their immediate families have no commercial associations eg consultancies stock ownership equity interest patent/licensing arrangements etc that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted articleThe words we use in scientific reporting and patient care matter Poorly chosen and carelessly used words – dehumanizing language – can hurt These words can hurt patients’ feelings they can harm our relationships with our patients and they can change the way we perceive those whom we care for or write about in ways that diminish our ability to work effectively on their behalfWho would use such language In fact many of us do at times often without even realizing it Patients are people they are not “cases” though spoken language and research reports often suggest they are With surprising frequency we receive papers with sentences like “Patients that present for treatment of …” when plainly patients as people should be referred to with the relative pronoun “who” These can be careless mistakes However in a recent paper we saw that same construction followed by “… and the surgeons who treat them …”Some of us might refer to a patient as a “diabetic” but we would not consider calling someone a “schizophrenic” or an “epileptic” The reason we prefer peoplefirst usages like “patient with diabetes” or “individual with schizophrenia” is that this kind of language makes it more clear that our patients are much more than the sum of their particular diagnoses Sometimes language one may perceive as being politically correct is simply correctAlong that same line the way we characterize control groups in research studies can change our perceptions about the patients with the disease or condition being studied Describing a control group as consisting of “normal” or “ablebodied” individuals conveys specific implications about the treatment groups that seldom are correct and in some instances can be both misleading and insulting Many diagnoses from obesity to limb loss to arthritis are attached to patients who feel they are both healthy and ablebodied and who in most important respects are ablebodied Saying or writing otherwise influences both patients’ selfperceptions and our preconceived ideas about these individuals in ways that do not improve our ability to help care for themSometimes peoplefirst language does not fit the bill Recently in the course of processing papers for a symposium on care of patients with limb loss it became evident that nearly all the papers referred to patients as “amputees” A case of mass insensitivity Quite the opposite Some groups of patients with particular diagnoses choose to selfdefine through the language they use Patients who have had amputations appear to be one such group Even the names of some leading advocacy groups – the Amputee Coalition formerly the Amputee Coalition of America wwwamputeecoalitionorg as well as the Paralyzed Veterans of America wwwpvaorg – make this quite plain Those who have cared for patients with these diagnoses know that in some settings the descriptive language some patients use can get quite colorful Both in medicine and outside it groups of individuals who have been marginalized commonly will reclaim language and use it in ways that would not be acceptable outside the group Language is power
Keywords: