Words and phrases that make me want to scream

[LydiaNN]

Feel free to add your own!

Handicap. One only needs to recognize the word's origins to under its offensiveness. Cap in hand. Nope. I've tried to convince our local Special Ed Consortium to stop qualifying kids for Special Ed based on their 'handicapping condition', but they just roll their eyes at me. Sigh.

Calling autism a mental illness. It's not. It may seem contradictory to say this, since I also find the stigmitization of mental illness unfortunate, but let's be clear. Autism is a developmental disorder, not an illness of any kind.

Saint. As in you're such a saint for taking care of your child. In the first place, such drek usually is coming from the mouth of a Mom whose kid is out in my front yard hacking at my rose bushes or doing something equally annoying. Since I am sure this child has many fine qualities, I resist the urge to tell her I'd be tempted to drop her kid off at the foot of a mountain. And of course, if we were my kid, I wouldn't dream of dropping him off at the foot of a mountain. We love our children and do everything we can for them, just like parents of typical kids. Why is that so hard for certain people to 'get'?

Stricken. Afflicted. Suffers. Whatever. How about the words 'has autism' or whatever they have, and you leave your personal judgment out of it?

In the past couple weeks, I have seen people in another thread express opinions that it is ever appropriate to suggest an out of home placement to a mother who hasn't asked for your opinion on the topic, heard a Speech Therapist call in to a radio show and talk about the handicapped kids she works with, and talked to a Special Education teacher who made a joke about insanity in the family of a child with a mental health dx. Honestly, I don't expect Joe Q. Public to be enlightened, but it would sure be nice if those who claim to be professionals acted a bit more aware at times.

[LydiaNN]

The problem is that it just becomes so flipping cumbersome. And it's hard to keep up with the latest "correct" terminology.

I wouldn't object to someone saying my grandson is a spina bifida kid. Heck, I think I've said that myself. I WOULD object to him being referred to as a spina bifida. Using adjectives as nouns (autistic instead of autistic kid) reduces a person to a condition and is just askng for trouble. Reminds me of hospital staff using diagnosis to identify their patients--the CABG in room 481, or the SOB in the ER. Imagine the fun if family members overhear those!

"People with mental or developmental challenges" is too much of a mouthful for me. I usually say "special needs people" because that's how I see them. They are people who, for whatever reason, need something extra to succeed or sometimes even, to survive.

I really dislike differently-abled in place of disabled. It's a euphemism that doesn't fool anybody, least of all the "differently-abled." It's up to those of us who are, or who care about, special needs people to stress that the term "disability" identifies a condition (however limited or pervasive it may be) and does NOT define the person to whom it refers.

Actually, 'people with mental or developmental challenges' is a bit of a mouthful, but it isn't much longer than 'the mental/developmentally challenged'. It is only 3 extra syllables, and it doesn't imply that people who have these challenges all belong to some kind of a quarantined group, instead of being included in their communities, the way the latter phrase does. That one I think is important. OTOH, I can agree with you about calling people differently-abled. To me, that term epitomizes all that PC a bad name... bending over so far backwards to avoid mentioning the word disability that the listener ends up with no clue as to what exactly the person's challenges might be. When it comes down to it, we are all differently abled from one another.

[VivaLasViejas, ASN, RN]

Can I throw in a term that sets my teeth on edge? It's noncompliant. As if people who can't (or don't want to) follow a certain prescribed diet/exercise/medication/treatment program are somehow weak, stubborn, stupid, etc. and therefore less worthy of our attention and care. It implies a value judgment that, IMHO, has no place in nursing practice........but, that's just me.

[LydiaNN]

Can I throw in a term that sets my teeth on edge? It's noncompliant. As if people who can't (or don't want to) follow a certain prescribed diet/exercise/medication/treatment program are somehow weak, stubborn, stupid, etc. and therefore less worthy of our attention and care. It implies a value judgment that, IMHO, has no place in nursing practice........but, that's just me.

Oh... don't get me started! We work with families of some children who have multiple needs, and are considered 'non-compliant' by multiple service providers. Over here you've got your PT, who hasn't considered the fact that it isn't exactly realistic to hope that a single, working mom of 3 children could coordinate a 2 hour a day home exercise program for one of them. Ding. Non-compliant. Or a physician who prescribes meds that in the best of all worlds (in which case, meds wouldn't be needed) could yield positive results, if only they didn't make the kid barf everytime he takes one, or risk a dangerous side effect if taken in conjunction with another med, that perhaps the doc thinks is less impt but the family thinks is more impt. Non-compliant. Or an OT, like my son used to have, who was convinced that it was a good use of his meager 30 minute a week session to insist that he learn to tie his shoes. He doesn't have the fine motor skills to do it, and he probably never will. Let's move on, shall we? Yep, I'm one of those non-compliant moms, just because I don't want my son frustrated week after week by being asked to do something that he just can't do. Yes, tying your shoes is a useful skill, and if there was anything to suggest he'd ever be able to do so (such as if he could even get past the first step, crossing the laces, for example), I'd be all for using up his OT time to practice.

[goats'r'us, ASN, RN]

what about 'profoundly disabled kids'? because that's what i say, partly because it's easier (and i think more respectful) than saying 'kids who needed feeding, washing, and couldn't drive their own wheelchairs' and partly because it never really mattered to me to find out the precise titles of their disabilities. they were just kids who couldn't do stuff, and they made me happy every time i saw them (even when i walked into one of the boys bedrooms and found him grinning his head off, basking in the smell of his own produce. if you get what i mean..)

[LydiaNN]

what about 'profoundly disabled kids'? because that's what i say partly because it's easier (and i think more respectful) than saying 'kids who needed feeding, washing, and couldn't drive their own wheelchairs' and partly because it never really mattered to me to find out the precise titles of their disabilities. they were just kids who couldn't do stuff, and they made me happy every time i saw them (even when i walked into one of the boys bedrooms and found him grinning his head off, basking in the smell of his own produce. if you get what i mean..)[/quote']

For me, that would be fine. Strictly speaking, PF language would want you to say 'kids with profound disabilities', but that's awkward. Myself, what I wouldn't like to hear, especially if it were my child, is the term 'the profoundly disabled, as in 'I work with the profoundly disabled', as though they all belong together and nowhere else. My son's disability is autism, and PF language would say that using the word autistic, as in 'he's autistic' is a no-no. I don't use it myself, but it doesn't offend me when others do. It does bother me when I hear 'he's an autistic' though, as though autism defines him, rather than describes one of his characteristics.

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

Forgive me if I think this is all a tad PC and a really poor hill to pick your battles on.

It smacks of being frustrated with other issues and using THIS issue to beat up others with that frustration.

But that's just my opinion, and while I'm perfectly entitled to it, you are entitled to yours.

handicapped sounds perfectly reasonable to me. It only means something 16th Century if that is what you choose to bind on it. But it's patently unfair to hold everybody else to that binding and then assume and/or assert that that means they are being purposely 'insensitive'.

It's just as likely that you are being 'overly sensitive'.

And I don't say this to stir something up. But honestly, language is supposed to be how we communicate. And even here, there's a detailed discussion on what could possibly be appropriate. If you require people to hold their tongue unless they can divine how to speak to you in a way that is perfectly PC, then it is YOU that have misused the purpose of language: because you will constantly become uncomfortable with ANY term over time. But, it's not the term that is the problem, but the associations you make. And over time, they cannot be changed.

And so the end result is that ANY term will become un-PC over time.

~faith,

Timothy.

[LydiaNN]

Forgive me if I think this is all a tad PC and a really poor hill to pick your battles on.

It smacks of being frustrated with other issues and using THIS issue to beat up others with that frustration.

But that's just my opinion, and while I'm perfectly entitled to it, you are entitled to yours.

handicapped sounds perfectly reasonable to me. It only means something 16th Century if that is what you choose to bind on it. But it's patently unfair to hold everybody else to that binding and then assume and/or assert that that means they are being purposely 'insensitive'.

It's just as likely that you are being 'overly sensitive'.

~faith,

Timothy.

And forgive me if I point out that you are the exactly the type of person that I believe just doesn't get it. It really isn't necessary for you to point out to me that I have the right to my opinion, but thanks for doing so anyway.

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

And forgive me if I point out that you are the exactly the type of person that I believe just doesn't get it. It really isn't necessary for you to point out to me that I have the right to my opinion, but thanks for doing so anyway.

Of course I 'get it'. I just don't 'buy it.'

And I was more pointing out that I am entitled to mine. And the reason for pointing that out was that I wanted to make sure the readers knew that I wasn't some troll trying to start something.

I'm not.

~faith,

Timothy.

[LydiaNN]

You've posted 1562 times. I think we all know that you're not a troll.

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

You've posted 1562 times. I think we all know that you're not a troll.

And I certainly respect you.

We don't always agree but we tend to have the same passions, as we cross paths in multiple threads.

My nephew has Asperger's, mildly. But he's just Marc, no tags. I can see how some tags can be 'offensive' but unless someone is purposely trying to goad you, then the 'offense' is probably not intended.

My point was that you have to make yourself see it that way: not intentional, or it'll always drive you crazy!

And this point isn't worth being driven crazy about.

~faith,

Timothy.

[rn/writer, RN]

And I certainly respect you.

We don't always agree but we tend to have the same passions, as we cross paths in multiple threads.

My nephew has Asperger's, mildly. But he's just Marc, no tags. I can see how some tags can be 'offensive' but unless someone is purposely trying to goad you, then the 'offense' is probably not intended.

My point was that you have to make yourself see it that way: not intentional, or it'll always drive you crazy!

And this point isn't worth being driven crazy about .

~faith,

Timothy.

Timothy (who is definitely not a troll),

This isn't so much about taking offense as it is believing that people DON'T mean to be offensive and helping them to align their speech with their good intentions. Yeah, the PC thing can become obnoxious and there are a few who exploit that whole business for their own goofy reasons, but I'm guessing that most of us who have a disability, or who love someone who does, stopped tilting at windmills along time ago in favor of trying to bridge gaps in people's understanding.

The usual reaction is gratitude for whatever explanation (or gentle correction) is offered. And relief, for making it okay to talk about the elephant in the room. I like to set people free from PC anxiety, even as I enlighten them about my grandsons' needs and conditions. With rare exceptions, everyone benefits.

[LydiaNN]

And I certainly respect you.

We don't always agree but we tend to have the same passions, as we cross paths in multiple threads.

My nephew has Asperger's, mildly. But he's just Marc, no tags. I can see how some tags can be 'offensive' but unless someone is purposely trying to goad you, then the 'offense' is probably not intended.

My point was that you have to make yourself see it that way: not intentional, or it'll always drive you crazy!

And this point isn't worth being driven crazy about.

~faith,

Timothy.

You don't get to decide what is worth being bothered by for anyone other than yourself. Following your thinking that any language is 'okay' as long as no offense is intended, one could revert to using the terms once commonly used to describe those of African or Jewish descent, so long as we don't 'mean' anything by it. Miranda put it best, it is about helping people with good intentions align their choice of words with the way others might interpret it. After all, it isn't really worth our time to try to enlighten those with bad intentions, anyway.