Persistent Vegetative State - would you want to live that way?

[realtraveller]

Actually, disabled rights groups do object to the term "persistent vegetative state". See the David Shuster column on msnbc.com

They especially object to the term when used by doctors saying it's dehumanizing, which I suppose it is when you think about it. Is a doctor treating you like a human being while he calls you a vegetable?

Words do matter and of themselves form impressions and opinions.

I'm old enough to remember when older people called those with Down Syndrome...Mongolian idiots.

Seems its time for 'persistent vegetative state" to go also.

[jgibson2[$]]

I think you're right about changing the label from PVS to persistent non-cognitive state. It might help with the misconception that these people are brain-dead, too. Even an ICU nurse I know was under the impression that Terri Schiavo is brain-dead and didn't understand the controversy.

[brian_igo]

realtraveller said

Actually, disabled rights groups do object to the term "persistent vegetative state". See the David Shuster column on msnbc.com

They especially object to the term when used by doctors saying it's dehumanizing, which I suppose it is when you think about it. Is a doctor treating you like a human being while he calls you a vegetable?

Words do matter and of themselves form impressions and opinions.

I'm old enough to remember when older people called those with Down Syndrome...Mongolian idiots.

Seems its time for 'persistent vegetative state" to go also.

Except "vegetative" in the medical context has nothing to do with vegetables.

Hell of a difference between doctors calling a medical condition where one's brain is only capable of maintaining involuntary bodily functions for an extended period (hence a "persistant vegetative state") and lay people once calling people with Down's Syndrome "Mongolian Idiots".




Brian

[anderclayton]

brian_igo said

Except "vegetative" in the medical context has nothing to do with vegetables.

Hell of a difference between doctors calling a medical condition where one's brain is only capable of maintaining involuntary bodily functions for an extended period (hence a "persistant vegetative state") and lay people once calling people with Down's Syndrome "Mongolian Idiots".

Brian

Actually if you take the "Mongolian" from that statement, it *was* a legitimate medical term in the same sense:

Idiot (definition 2, dictionary.com)

A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.

Ander

[jgibson2[$]]

brian_igo said

Except "vegetative" in the medical context has nothing to do with vegetables.

Hell of a difference between doctors calling a medical condition where one's brain is only capable of maintaining involuntary bodily functions for an extended period (hence a "persistant vegetative state") and lay people once calling people with Down's Syndrome "Mongolian Idiots".




Brian

Brian,
It wasn't just lay people. Here is a medical paper written in the 1860's in which Down syndrome is described by the physician for whom it is currently named.

BTW, "idiot" and "imbecile" were once medical terms, used to describe people with varying degrees of mental retardation (I mean developmental delay). You can see how the terminology changes over time. I expect that PVS will give way -- in part as a result of this case. People showing up outside the hospice with carrots in their hands helps to demonstrate how confusing that term is to lay people.

[anderclayton]

Simultaneous post.

[jgibson2[$]]

anderclayton said

Actually if you take the "Mongolian" from that statement, it *was* a legitimate medical term in the same sense:

Idiot (definition 2, dictionary.com)


Ander

Ander,
You beat me, but Mongolian was part of the name of one type of "idiocy" - the one currently known as Down Syndrome. There were a number of other syndromes known by equally offensive (by our standards) names.

[anderclayton]

Ah, well... Interesting

Ander

[drmomentum[$]]

What Brian seemed to me to be saying was not that it was a problem that it was a medical term. "Idiot" only became derogatory once lay people started using it.

"Vegetative" is a medical term. And it is descriptive.

Besides -- what's wrong with comparing people to plants? Is there something bad about plants, or taboo, which I don't know about? I think you'd have an argument if they called it a "monkey-like" state, because it's nothing like the state of a monkey.

We even have tree-huggers. Maybe the protesters in Florida are "persistent vegetative state" huggers. Not as catchy.

No matter how damaged, people cannot photosynthesize their own food. So they have that over us. True fact. You'll just get a sunburn. Actually, you do get some vitamin D out of the deal, so it's not a complete loss.

Clearly, this is the crux of this whole debate. Maybe we can get the president to fly in and resolve it.

-JP

[brian_igo]

jgibson2 said

Brian,
It wasn't just lay people. Here is a medical paper written in the 1860's in which Down syndrome is described by the physician for whom it is currently named.

BTW, "idiot" and "imbecile" were once medical terms, used to describe people with varying degrees of mental retardation (I mean developmental delay). You can see how the terminology changes over time. I expect that PVS will give way -- in part as a result of this case. People showing up outside the hospice with carrots in their hands helps to demonstrate how confusing that term is to lay people.

I know about the archaic classifications for developmental disabilities, and I agree they were patently offensive. Ditto for any number of mental illness diagnoses from the 19th and early 20th century.

But that's all the ground I can give. If someone who doesn't understand the diagnosis or can't be bothered to open a dictionary wants to hold carrots outside a hospice (which might be the single most offensive thing I've heard in this whole affair...) should we change what is a linguistically and technically correct diagnosis to suit their level of intelligence and tact? Medicine has a responsibility to be clear to the lay people it serves but that should not come at a sacrifice of accuracy.

So I am clear, I think any doctor, nurse or medical technician who ever refers to a patient as a vegetable should be severely reprimanded. But a diagnosing a persistant vegetative state isn't the same as calling someone a vegetable. Nor is it the same as "idiot" and "imbecile" which, while diagnoses, never described a physiological function and a key symptom like vegetative does. And most important, a PVS isn't necessisarily the same as persistant non-cognative state. As I understand it, people described as being non-cognative do not respond to stimuli but do not have the physical destruction of the cognative brain centers. People who have suffered severe hypothermia or heatstroke, or who have experienced a drug overdose, can be non-cognative weeks, months or even years. But their brains do not have the irreversable destruction of brain tissue that comes through hypoxia (like Terri Schiavo) or severe trauma, and leaves the brain only able to control vegetative functions.




Brian

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

So can we say someone's "catatonic," or would that be insinuating that they're like cats?

[drmomentum[$]]

Do you mean the musical, or the pet?

Because I think one of those might be an insult.

[pippadaisy[$]]

You know what? I like the non-cognitive better. Why? Because it states CANNOT THINK. INCAPABLE OF ACTUAL THOUGHT. No confusion there.

[jgibson2[$]]

I think that non-cognitive is helpful when trying to explain that the occasional vocalization or smile is actually part of the syndrome. Most people understand the difference between newborn smiles and that social smile you see in babies a few months later. Most people understand the difference between "da da da da" and "dada!" that comes a little later in infants. Not that newborns are entirely non-cognitive, but most of what they do really is reflex activity.

OTOH, MOST people don't seem to get that when you stick your finger in a newborn's hand and they latch onto it as if their life depended on it, THAT is a reflex too.

[theworm[$]]

Most people are stupid.
I'm sorry - I don't really mean that. I'm just worn out.

Vegetative state and vegetable are completely different.
Mentally retarded and "Retard" are different.
Invalid can be an offensive term - we now prefer dissabled.
Language changes and we need to change with it.

Hell - Gay used to mean happy. Who could possibly object to two happy people getting married? I have no problem with gay people marrying (or homosexuals marrying)

I don't think I made a point here, but I got some money for Topaz.

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

theworm said

Invalid can be an offensive term - we now prefer dissabled.

Actually I think it's "person with a disability." Making it an adjective instead of a pronoun. Mom considered herself "handicapped," and thought it was stupid when people started coming up with "differently-abled" and other euphamisms.

[pippadaisy[$]]

Nope... a lot of people don't like the term "disability" either, and don't even go NEAR the whole segment of the population who cannot hear. You can't use hearing impaired, disability.... I've gotten raked over the coals several times.

[theworm[$]]

mjfrombuffalo said

Actually I think it's "person with a disability." Making it an adjective instead of a pronoun. Mom considered herself "handicapped," and thought it was stupid when people started coming up with "differently-abled" and other euphamisms.

But there are different examples all over language!

Handicapped, dissabled, invalid, etc. I hate invalid - it sounds like your invalidating someone, but handicapped, dissabled, person with a dissability - don't offend me. If those terms offend the people that are being discussed, thats more important that what offends me.

We have it with lots of things. Look at all the racial terminology. The "N" word was always awful, but Black, Colored, African-American - the words change with time. The same can be said of words used to describe Jews, Asians, and the list goes on and on and on.

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

theworm said

But there are different examples all over language!

True dat. And generally the trend I've seen has been to get away from using a pronoun and making it an adjective because a person is more than his/her handicapping condition or whatever. Why do you think sometimes non-Jewish people avoid calling someone a Jew, and instead use "She's Jewish"? PC radar run amok.

Look at all the racial terminology. The "N" word was always awful, but Black, Colored, African-American - the words change with time. The same can be said of words used to describe Jews, Asians, and the list goes on and on and on.

Don't even go there. The words change with time AND the terms are not universally accepted. Hubby and his family react strongly if someone calls them "African-American" instead of "Black." They trace their ancestry to Haiti, not slavery, and so don't consider themselves "African-American" since that term is generally accepted to mean "Blacks who trace their ancestry to Africa who came to America as slaves." Even some people I know who are African and gained American citizenship don't want to be called "African-American" (an ethnic designation, actually) and would prefer the racial designation, "Black."

Or you can use "persons of color," which goes back to the whole "making-an-adjective-phrase-instead-of-using-the-adjective-as-pronoun" thing.


[/offtopic]

[theworm[$]]

Yep - but African-American is an assumption thats not fair. Many "people of color" are not from Africa. But "people of color" can also mean Asians, Native Americans, and a whole bunch of other stuff.

Saying - she is a Jew is not offensive. Is "she's a Christian" offensive?