AIBU to feel passionate about using 'person first' terminology?

[crashdoll]

I feel particularly strongly about not labelling people as 'autistic' or 'schizophrenic'. In a world where treatment and care is moving towards being person centred and individualised, I feel it is very important to acknowledge the person who is not their diagnosis. Part of this is because those with learning disabilities and/or MH problems are still discriminated against and seem to be lumped together as a group of people with little recognition for the fact that they are individuals.

I've seen challenges to this such as; "my son with schizophrenia doesn't mind" but this doesn't wash with me because as a whole, the professional world is moving towards person first terminology. And while one person might not mind, overall, the terminology is evolving and moving forward.

Yanbu, of course. But you're asking people to rearrange what feels to them like a natural speech pattern.

I think it's natural to say 'that tall kid' rather than 'that kid who's tall' etc.

These things take a long time to trickle through, and for many people, they won't catch on at all.

All the autistic adults I know prefer being an autistic person to being a person with autism. They feel like the second is patronising and is based on the assumption that autism is something to be ashamed of and separated from instead of being a difference integral to who they are. That said, I always say I'm autistic as do the other autistic people I know, but for some reason I feel uncomfortable when a neuro-typical person says it.

Oh I do know it's grammatically unnatural and it does require thought but eventually, I think it would become the norm.

I was watching north east news when they were carrying the torch and they said 'downs syndrome boy'

!!!

I was like OMFG how could they?!?! But all my family said I was wrong to be annoyed by it!

I see both sides of this. Of course the person has to come first, but I don't think that everyone who uses the phrase 'he's autistic' or such like is of the opinion that the condition is more important that the person.

If I was chatting to a friend and said 'my dh is diabetic' it doesn't indicate that I think any less of him than I would have if I'd said 'my dh is a person with diabetes'. That language just doesn't flow properly.

It's the same as some people being offended by the term 'in a wheelchair'. I know wheelchair users who use that phrase, and I have also been corrected by wheelchair users for using that phrase myself. Neither is right or wrong, people have different opinions on language that should be used and one opinion is not more worthy than the other just because some people don't like it. The intention behind the statement is what matters.

It can be an individual thing

Do you mean as klad describes, a person with autism rather than an autistic person

Or do you think the actual word autistic or schizophrenia should not be used at all. Many mental health professionals would like to do away with diagnosis of bi polar, personality disorder etc and just treat the individual and their symptoms without giving them a 'name' if that makes sense

You're right that its better to think of anyone as a person first, and other things second. And the words we use do influence the way we think (and vice versa). But it takes a conscious effort, as MorrisZapp says we just don't put the words in that order when we are talking about people usually. is so much the norm that "blonde lady" and "disabled person" are both the "usual" way of putting things, and it means you have to catch yourself before the words come out and thurn them round.

And then, if it's what we usually say, is it actually insulting to put the adjective first when its a "negative" word like disabled or autistic? Rather than "blonde" or "tall"? We aren't thinking of someone as more blonde/tall than as a person are we?

It can be an individual thing

Do you mean as klad describes, a person with autism rather than an autistic person

Or do you think the actual word autistic or schizophrenia should not be used at all. Many mental health professionals would like to do away with diagnosis of bi polar, personality disorder etc and just treat the individual and their symptoms without giving them a 'name' if that makes sense

iPhone fail with the post

I find that quite scary Moominsarescary. For me an essential part of coming to terms with who I am was having a name for it and being able to connect with others with the same condition. I spent 40 years of being treated just for the symptoms without the label and wouldn't wish it on anyone.

That's the thing klad I think many people feel the same as you, sometimes having the label can help you come to terms with the condition and give you the support of others going through the same thing.

I think the main diagnosis some hcps are thinking of is schizophrenia. Probably because of the way the media portrays it and the publics perception of the illness

Oh I do know it's grammatically unnatural and it does require thought but eventually, I think it would become the norm.

It is the Norm across Social Work and filtering down into medical. HCP's are looking at the person from the medical model of disability, so that is why it is slow and may not completely happen.

The more informed across social care, do use the better phrase, it will change.

It isn't that difficult but most of the public don't understand how important the use of language is,or are aware enough of how they communicate.

Which is useful to those that are trained in communication because we can gain more by how things are said and what isn't said, rather than what they do say, Police, SW's, phsychologists etc.

"Many mental health professionals would like to do away with diagnosis of bi polar, personality disorder etc"

Would they do this for diabetes or a stroke?!

Is mental illness not "real" illness then, that needs to be understood and researched and treated like other illnesses?

I always refer to my Dyslexic DD1, because:-

1. I only mention she's dyslexic when it's relevant.
2. DD1 who has dyslexia is a stupid mouthful.
3. because I want to highlight that dyslexia goes way beyond reading and writing. The difficulties she and I have with remembering faces, names, gossip. Not picking up clues as to when It's our turn in a conversation. Being scatty and disorganised sometimes.

In some contexts it does define us and how we interact with the world.

4. We are not ashamed or sorry to be dyslexic, we are not bothered that the rest of the world finds us a bit odd.

In fact it's jolly useful not being able to remember things unless you understand and cross link them.

To answer a couple of points before I head off, of course some illnesses/diabilities are part of you and they do affect how you interact with the the world. However, within that, you are still a person, a human being with different quirks and qualities. All people who are diagnosed with autism will have certain symptoms and ways about them and these may be common with many other people with autism hence the dx. However, it's only their diagnosis, there is more to a person than that.

Personally, I think it's different to saying people are tall or blonde because tall and/or blonde people haven't experienced the same stigma or discrimation as those with disabilities and MH problems. These are marginalised groups of people who have been shunned by society in times gone by and elements remain. Also, within these groups, there are people who are unable to communicate their needs and wants.

Oh and in no way am I saying there is any shame in interacting differently with the world. Quite the opposite, I am saying we are all people and some us have diagnoses that changes the way we interact and communicate but we are still people.

It has nothing to do with being a "real" illness serial obviously those who work in mh know it is a real illness

It is to do with the discrimination people who are diagnosed with schizophrenia suffer every day due to public and media perception

Personally I think education is the answer, mh professionals should go into schools and talk to children about mental illness.

I disagree totally with the OP, though I appreciate that the motives behind this language mangling may be caring and compassionate.

It is simply not true that the order of words in a sentence says anything about what relative stress they have.

If I say I have a green car I am not implying that its greenness is more important or a more defining quality than its vehicle-ness. Am I supposed to say I have a car with greenness?

If I describe Roger Federer as a Swiss tennis player I am not suggesting that his nationality is more important than his tennis ability. (Should I describe him as a person of tennis who happens to have Swiss heritage?)

It's much simpler than that. It's just that in the English language, when an adjective is used to describe a noun the adjective almost always precedes the noun (except in forms such as "the car is green"). There is no value judgment expressed or implied.

But my autistic son/son who has autism has never been shunned by society or been marginalised.

I don't want to have to start messing around with perfectly acceptable terms, because that draws attention to the fact that once upon a time, someone like him could have been ridiculed for just being themselves. He has no more to worry about than a tall person, or a blonde person, so why differentiate in the language that is used to refer to him?

It's just something else that marks him out as beng in a separate group if you put his condition on a list of terms that have to be spoken about differently.

And I come back to "would like to do away with diagnosis".

Did you mean something different from what you actually said, Moomin?

Because it comes out like, "oh, we shouldn't diagnose people who have leprosy because they might get called names."

Of course you can call leprosy Hansen's Disease, and help people understood it can now be effectively treated. Etc etc. But that's very different from "HCPs should do away with diagnosis of leprosy".

I hate it when people call my son 'an aspie'. To me, and I fully accept that it is different for different people, it sounds like that is all they see of him.
To me he is first and foremost Matthew(not his real name) second he is my wonderful, charming and funny son and lastly he happens to be a young man with ASD.
If he chooses to call himself an aspie then I will accept it IF it his choice not pushed on him by other people.

"there is more to a person than that" - yes but there is more to a person than being blonde/tall/anything else. I'm just trying to explore why it's ok to put the adjective first when it's a positive or neutral one, but not when it's perceived to be a negative one. And is it perpetuating the "negativity" to say that some adjectives have to be treated differently?

If a condition has been stigmatised, is treating the word for it differently from how we treat "positive" words going to help?

Now then. This has reminded me of something from primary school when I was about 10, so 22 years ago now.

I came into the classroom and a lad was sitting with his head on his hands a bit tearful. He had had a fit earlier that week and couldn't go out to play.

I asked him what the matter was and he said "I wish they wouldn't call me an epileptic. I'm not. I'm a boy who has epilepsy."

I don't think I ever forgot that He can only have been 9 or 10 but was full old enough to want to be seen as a person first.

If a child that young can feel and understand the different I think we all should...

The thing is, sometimes you do need to know that the person in front of you is an autistic, is bi-polar etc...
not because it defines who they are in their entirety (it's obviously not the case) but because it does help to understand some behaviours that could otherwise be misconstrued.

eg: someone makes an inappropriate comment. You can consider he is a tw** and get very assertive retaliate. but if you know that person is autistic and wasn't in any way trying to hurt/be difficult etc.., then you have the opportunity to react more appropriately.
In this case, the diagnosis is important because it gives understanding on why a person might be reacting in a certain way.

I am not convinced that not giving a diagnosis and getting away from them completely would help and not create even more problems.

This is exactly why there cannot be any hard and fast rules that apply to everyone.

I don't mind if my ds is referred to as an aspie, as long as it isn't done with any negativity. I have in the past said 'because he's aspie, he finds it hard to .......'. That's just me explaining something, not beng derogatory about my own child.

But if someone else doesn't like the term then that is equally valid too. Not more valid. Just equally valid.

That's the whole point of treating people as people first and not as people with a condition. They will all have their own opinions on how they would prefer to be referred to.