about this story in today's Metro?

[EyelinerQueen]

DP sent me this from the bus this morning. An excerpt from a story about the World Cup opening ceremony.

I know it's not exactly The Washington Post and I'm not at all one of the P.O. brigade but I am genuinely baffled at this.

It's not just me is it?

The wording was wrong. But what was worse was the way the staging and filming was so bad that you barely saw him. There wasn't any explanation of what was going on- what should have been a really exciting and empowering part of the event was reduced to a tokenistic footnote.

Nancy I did not say the elderly I said mainly elderly and mainly older patients
This is how the patients describe themselves .

dawndonnasdaughter In what way was I belttling or reducing???? I'm repeating what my patients say.
I have been a HCP for many years and do the statutary training, so I know what terminology I can use to talk to my patients and ask them about there medical conditions.
I have called nobody a cripple (read my post again) it is whay some patients say. Am I meant to say to them "Oh you can't use words like that" Of course not. THAT would be insulting to them.
I would never refer to anyone as a cripple or use the other phrases in your post.
And I am very insulted at what you posted about me TBH.

And in work I am always polite to my patients no matter what their age/gender/medical conditions/ethnicity- as a HCP that's what is expected of me and that's what I do as a human being.

It's a difficult enough task as it is, don;t put words in my mouth.

I completely understand and can empathise with her perspective, however I think it was unfair of her to jump on the other poster and accuse the other poster of something she was not doing. The other poster simply posted what she witnesses as the perspective of those she works with, which was not dissimilar to what your daughter expressed herself. It was unfair of her to project this onto the other poster who is not guilt of any of those things she was caused of.

My point is in order to educate people it is simply not beneficial to attack, but I'm sure at 17 your dd will find this as she matures. I certainly don't think she should be told off either.

Accused of!! not caused of obviously

The point is though crinkle to say he is paraplegic or a paraplegic is not acceptable.

Don't be ridiculous - it is perfectly acceptable to say someone is paraplegic as it is a description of his most relevant feature in this particular instance. He was chosen becuase of his paraplegia so using it in the context is fine in exacly the same way as you may may say someone:

is blonde
is white
is black
is tall
is short

The problem with the article (assuming it wasn't a misprint) is not the description of the person as being paraplegic, it is the omission of a humanising noun (man, woman, person) thus reducing him to his condition rather than his condition being used as a relevant descriptive feature

Well actually after considering this further than my very first post on this thread. I don't agree with that and it is certainly not ridiculous for me to suggest that.

70
Dd has gone to school now, but I think you will find it was your use of PC jargon that enraged her.

So is it 'offensive' so say "A cardiac patient" - in which case we can't have Cardiac Wards, they'd be "Wards for people with a cardiac diagnosis"

or EMI (Elderly Mentally Impaired) yes I was in an EMI ward last week, they must've missed the memo that they needed to change the name to "Older People with a Mental Impairment" ward

I'm going now, I really have better things to do,

Yes, 70, but if you were a journalist writing an article and describing a photo, I doubt you'd say 'three men and a Mentally Impaired Elderly', would you?

dawn - ok "PC Jargon" isn't the correct phrase (I'm sure there's better) but I could've done without the "I can use these words you can't" response.

Because I didn't use those words , I third party - repeated.
And I deal with patients who are end-of-life, or long term mobility or medical conditions.

As far as I am concerned , they can use whatever terminology they like. I'm not going to pick them up on it.

I wouldn't say or write it on their notes or when talking to them/their family or their GP etc.

I would certainly say elderly mentally impaired should be reconsidered. The reason some of these terms are not changed in public health services is the cost it would I cure. I don't know many health professionals who would use mentally imparted in there professional language.

Again though , if I asked a patient "Hows your wife then Mr Smith"
he'd reply "Oh she's on the dementia ward/ EMI ward" not any other new title that they use.

It's along the same lines as when terms like "love" or "sweetheart" aren't used.

A relative of mine was in a hospital ward , the nurse called him "Sweetheart" which I didn't find in the least bit offensive TBH.
Though I personally use Mr X or Mrs Y, it doesn't bother me .

I think alot of the Dignity and Respect Training loses sight of what the patient wants too.
YY to being polite and respectful.
But the constant overthinking is sometimes a bit

HornyHands is that really the most ridiculous thing you've ever heard? Goodness.

I should have said the word 'retard' is more acceptable and more mainstream in the States than here, which is true. I know there are plenty of Americans who don't like it.

Anecdotally, it does seem that 'retard', and also 'spaz', are used more casually and with less offence in the US than here

I agree, you'll still hear 'retard' in American TV shows and films in a way that you haven't done here for about 25 years.

70 if you have done the training why can you not distinguish between the medical and social model of disability?

A cardiac ward in a hospital is a place were people with medical conditions go to have those medical conditions treated.

Outside of that environment do you think they are known as 'the woman with the dodgy heart' or 'mum'? The ward is the cardiac ward. The person is not the Heart Failure or the Blocked Valve.

Even within a hospital environment referring to people as their medical conditions is not acceptable. The fact that so many HCPs do it does not make it ok.

If you don't want to change that is your prerogative but don't expect people to make you right.

That nurse only called my DD a luekemic once.

My mum was paraplegic she wasn't a paraplegic. She was a person.

People need to understand there is a world of difference between political correctness gorn mad and challenging offensive labels.

Banning baa baa black sheep - PC gorn mad
Defining a person by their disability - offensive.

Simple.

70isaLimitNotaTarget

DawnDonna's DD explained the difference between someone making jokes at their own expense, and being referred to in the same way by a third-party. She didn't accuse you of calling anyone a 'cripple'.

You were implying that using polite terminology to people is unnecessary if they don't actually use it themselves, and she, as someone with a disability, explained why that is a silly thing for you to conclude.

Any other basic rules of social interaction you need explaining while DawnDonna's DD is out? Did you know, for example, that if you hear two women having a laugh over a private joke in the caff, and calling each other "you slapper", they're not giving permission to eavesdroppers to call them "slappers"? Or was that a rule you already had, that (like many people) you suspend for people with disabilities?

I am not in favour of using these medical terms with reference to a person. It's crass.

If someone described me as diabetic I wouldn't be offended in the slightest.

I do it about myself, though. I say I'm chronically fatigued and clinically depressed (when I am, obvs, as unlike paraplegia my conditions are variable.) It would have been better to say "a paraplegic wo/man" or, even better, "Joan Smith, who is paraplegic". But newspapers have to count words - and, anyway, half of them can't even spell. So in the greater scheme of things: meh.

I think it's OK to say a person is diabetic or has epilepsy. But not right to say a person is a diabetic or an epileptic. It's offensive IMHO.

Aha! I've just figured this out They weren't referring to the condition rather than the person, because they didn't say "a paraplegia". They used a class noun as a label, which is mostly acceptable when it's the main point - say, "a teacher" or "a child". I'm not saying it's ideal but, then again, would objecting to a class noun associated with a disability be disablist in itself?

It was relevant, because an able-bodied person wouldn't need a robot suit to help them kick a ball!

I noticed that and thought they could do better. A paraplegic man - just one extra word would have made a lot of difference.

caruthers how would you feel about your child's teacher pointing at you and telling the receptionist 'bring the diabetic in?'

Or the postman saying 'you the diabetic?' here's your mail.

Your boss referring to you in a meeting as 'the diabetic who works on the fifth floor'

Your child's HV on a routine clinic visit 'come in diabetic we will see you and little Curuthers now'

Wouldn't you think that was a weird?