[stone]

washing dementia patients or whatever.

This more of an educational post in general. Having been a clinical lead for a complex dementia unit and seen how the disease impacts people, I have a strong stance about the term dementia patient.

Please don’t refer to people as dementia patients.
They are people first and foremost and remain that way until they die.

Reducing their worth to a term of a disease is degrading and dehumanising.
It’s tragic when dementia impacts on a person’s life and that of their loved ones, let’s keep recognising that they are a person with a life story, not a refer to them as a disease.

Language is powerful

Noted, thanks, I hadn't realised all the issues with my wording.
Would "people with dementia" be the way to phrase it ?

I'm sort of taken aback by your correction since I've very much viewed myself as being a patient when ill. I still feel a sort of vague tribal solidarity with "cancer patients" and "psychiatric patients" much as I do with eg other climbers. I do consider it a facet of my identity I guess.

Part of me wonders whether by tip-toeing around something we are implicitly casting it as being shameful. When we refer to someone as "a climber" we are not reducing their worth to just the past time they enjoy, it is just the aspect of them that happens to be relevant in that context.

[Aussiegav]

Just to be explicit,
I took it as an opportunity to raise awareness of the terminology and its impact.

I work in the NHS and I hear dementia patient used a lot and often extends into terms such aggressive, violent, & old silly Sod etc…
These behaviours are a symptom of the disease, not a personality trait.


A more person centred phrase used is living with dementia/cancer etc……

Anyway, 


Let’s get back to the subject of bouldering, climbing and using big grades for bad beta.
 

[SA Chris]

when Charles went to Rocklands he was staying in a cave.

Clearly not concerned about the wildlife! I've seen enough slithering and crawling things about to put me off.

[Ged]

washing dementia patients or whatever.

This more of an educational post in general. Having been a clinical lead for a complex dementia unit and seen how the disease impacts people, I have a strong stance about the term dementia patient.

Please don’t refer to people as dementia patients.
They are people first and foremost and remain that way until they die.

Reducing their worth to a term of a disease is degrading and dehumanising.
It’s tragic when dementia impacts on a person’s life and that of their loved ones, let’s keep recognising that they are a person with a life story, not a refer to them as a disease.

Language is powerful

Noted, thanks, I hadn't realised all the issues with my wording.
Would "people with dementia" be the way to phrase it ?

I'm sort of taken aback by your correction since I've very much viewed myself as being a patient when ill. I still feel a sort of vague tribal solidarity with "cancer patients" and "psychiatric patients" much as I do with eg other climbers. I do consider it a facet of my identity I guess.

Part of me wonders whether by tip-toeing around something we are implicitly casting it as being shameful. When we refer to someone as "a climber" we are not reducing their worth to just the past time they enjoy, it is just the aspect of them that happens to be relevant in that context.

I hate being referred to as a climber.  Genuinely. 

My wife teaches Health and Social care, and they talk a lot about referring to "people with a disability" rather than "disabled person".  Quite a big difference I think.

[M1V0]

I hate being referred to as a climber.  Genuinely. 

Why do you think that is? I'm inclined to agree, and I think that's from my own perception of the general climbing population, of which I feel I share minimal values with (and yet, I would probably fit into most other people's perception of what a climber is). I might tell people that I climb, but not that I am a climber.

I think that broadly, referring to people in a reductionist attitude (climber, patient, etc.) is not necessarily harmful in and of itself, but it is the changed perceptions that come with it. In clinical settings, making someone's social identity solely concentrated on their diagnosis will allow others to make disconnections with those people through an absence of shared values and not identifying with those groups of people. In a sense of, "I don't have this diagnosis, so we are different to each other".

[jwi]

You guys might be overly sensitive?

[stone]

Having been a clinical lead for a complex dementia unit

It struck me that Assiegav seemed happy to say was a clinical lead. He proudly embodied that role (hats off to him). He didn't say "having worked as a clinical lead" or "having lived as someone working as a clinical lead".

[stone]

"Holocaust survivor" and "Vietnam vet" are examples where people proudly embody positions subject to utmost grim adversity.

[Dingdong]

You guys might be overly sensitive?

Maybe they have vastly different experiences and history surrounding specific subjects which means they see it from a different perspective and thus are more sensitive? It doesn’t invalidate their feelings…

[M1V0]

"Holocaust survivor" and "Vietnam vet" are examples where people proudly embody positions subject to utmost grim adversity.

It is all entirely subjective and boils down to how individuals perceive and determine their own identity. For some, grim adversity can become a defining characteristic and it gives them a sense of community with others who share similar experiences and values. Gav may view their time as a clinical lead as an identity that they do associate with and are happy to refer to themselves as. Dementia patients, less so - as it can cast people as an outgroup, particularly when it isn't those with a dementia diagnosis who are using the term. Even the term 'patient' doesn't tend to have positive connotations associated with it, when referring to others. People's social identities are individually defined and allow them to perceive their association with others through these identities forming social groups. Perceiving people as not being part of your group often leads to less prosocial behaviours in general.

As for the lighter term 'climber" - I think my view of people who probably refer to themselves solely as "a climber" is, to me at least, probably more for indoor boulderers who don't/haven't climbed outdoors. I also appreciate the idea that I have at least more than one facet to my person. Not many, but probably more than just one.

[M1V0]

You guys might be overly sensitive?

How dare you!

But in seriousness, I think I identify more strongly with a subset of those who climb, and being cast into a broad generalisation of a group doesn't define my self-perceptions well enough.

[stone]

Back in the 1950s, white people presumed that it was "nicer" to refer to black people as "coloured" and so did so.  We now recognise that as wrong.

Often people facing oppression don't like to have the characteristic targeted by oppression talked about in a euphemistic way.

So Aussiegav's point isn't clear to me. I'll defer to his expertise and not use the term "dementia patient" in future, but that is despite me not being convinced.

[mrjonathanr]

I hate being referred to as a climber.  Genuinely. 

Why do you think that is?

Because people don’t like reductive categorisations? Exceptions being where someone strongly  identifies with a particular identity and wants others to know it, as per Stone’s examples.

Edit-crossed posts- @ Stone: the patient term is reductive, that’s the nub of it.

[spidermonkey09]

Whilst obviously this is all very admirable in terms of thinking about how people want to be perceived, is there not a risk that to the average person it just amounts to over-theorisation and speaking in riddles? I confess that I don't see referring to someone as a patient is in any way derogatory but happy to bow to others expertise.

Edit, what nails said.

[Nails]

I think there's a great difficulty in focussing on terminology rather than meaning when using language. Yes, language is powerful, but huge swathes of that power is derived from context, tone and the pragmatics of language. Language is inherently teleological, so ignoring the goals and purpose of someone’s language and focussing upon a specific word or phrase is wilfully denying what they were actually attempting to say.
To insist that calling someone a “Dementia Patient” whilst they are receiving dementia care is somehow denigrating, is frankly ridiculous. Clearly in that situation they are a “Dementia Patient” but no one is suggesting that is all they are. Messing about with the phrase and saying “patient receiving dementia care” doesn’t change anything. Are they only receiving dementia care? Surely they aren’t just a patient? (Reductio ad absurdum). A “Football Supporter” probably has other facets to their life. When they’re sat in a football stadium we don’t think there’s anything wrong with calling them a “Football Supporter”.
Having spent years helping to manage my father’s dementia and also terminal cancer (he was a “Dementia Patient” as well as a “Cancer Patient”), I find this pettiness around terminology ridiculous. The reality of his final months in a  “Care Home” ( a “Home” that doesn’t just give care), meant that our concerns weren’t really about terminology. We were concerned about whether he’d been sat in his own piss and faeces for a prolonged period. Or the extent to which he was suffering when he weighed only 4 stone in the period before he died.
So I think we need to focus on meaning and not word-policing.

[mrjonathanr]

Hi Nails, I’m sorry to read about your experience. Having family members experience dementia I’m well aware how traumatic that must have been.

The internet is a great for losing nuance, isn’t it? How words are used is context specific. Same sounds, different context, different meaning. My reading of Gav’s posts is an objection to the dehumanising effect of labels thoughtlessly used. I’m on board with that: the language we use shapes our understanding, for good or ill. Words matter because they give shape to our ideas and so to our behaviour. There’s no need to wrap ourselves in knots about it, just avoid lazy labelling of people.

[Wellsy]

If pressed I'd describe myself as a Boulderer

But typically I'd say something like "I'm a keen boulderer" I.e I do it a lot. I wouldn't say I'm a "climber" because that implies routes and such, which I don't do.

It's probably not very high on my list of self-identifications, though it's definitely there.

[jwi]

People,

I know some guys with great empathy and very limited vocabulary. It is ridiculous to require that they should use words with subtle difference in meaning depending on your feelings. As long as a label not used exclusively in a derogatory way (gipsy, spic, etc...) it is fine to use.

[Nails]

I don't think my own experience with my father's dementia is actually particularly rare these days. I know plenty of people with similar experiences. All part of increased life expectancy meaning that people are more likely to suffer from dementia as they have survived longer than previous generations.

I agree we shouldn't tie ourselves in knots. I think Gav's point about reductive terms is probably entirley appropriate in his role as a Clinical Lead in a Dementia Ward. But that's context again isn't it. He's being careful with his words in order to avoid the risk of offence in that setting. This doesn't mean that we all have to use the same wording in every setting. I think the main point is that there was absolutely nothing wrong with Stone's original words or meaning, and he didn't deserve to be picked up on them.

[seankenny]

I have long covid and absolutely no problem with being called a long covid patient. I am perfectly well aware that there are other aspects to my life and I want healthcare staff to concentrate on:
a) not treating me like a piece of meat
b) fixing the problem

I’m sure they all get lots of training in using the right words and so on but those two criteria don’t get met all that often for long covid patients. This is usually due to ignorance, a lack of curiosity or the fact that many doctors are actively hostile to things they don’t understand. (Never present a test-passer with a test they can’t pass.) I guess my concern is that excessive language policing can give the appearance of treating people humanely without any of the substance.

[M1V0]

I think my main intended point got lost in my writing.

I am by no means advocating for the policing of language, or mandating specific terms to use. Group identities are more complex than that. E.g., I use UKB, read it frequently, and possess some self-identification with many of you as other users of the site and that we share common ground on a passion for our pasttime. I am not though, indicating I am a "UKBer" or anything of the like. My identity is far more nuanced.

My point was that our social identities and how we see our membership of particular social groups, which can be defined by medical diagnoses, activities, political views, employment, etc., affects the way that we can treat others. These identities, not the terms, are what shapes our actions towards others, and in particular instances, it is necessary to use language that does not strictly place others in a social group outside ones that we may share common ground.

[seankenny]

Nah, it’s not our identity that “shapes our actions towards others” - it’s our relationship with the means of production! Or at least our position in various hierarchies of economic, cultural and physical power.

Over emphasis on identity in a medical context is a handy way of obscuring who has the power in the relationship between healthcare worker and patient (clue: it’s not the patient) whilst pretending to do something about it.

[mrjonathanr]

Nah, it’s not our identity that “shapes our actions towards others” - it’s our relationship with the means of production! Or at least our position in various hierarchies of economic, cultural and physical power.

I'd agree with that to the extent that our relationships shape us and so create the sense of who we are in a given context. The world shapes us. Who we think/feel/believe we are does shape our behaviour too, there is a tension between all these forces.

Sorry to read you have not recovered Sean. Thinking positive thoughts for you.

[seankenny]

Thanks! Really appreciate the positive thoughts Recovering but not recovered is the order of the day, I think. Small steps and all that.

[SA Chris]

Hang in there!