What's in a name? Legislation would end use of the term 'mental retardation'

[Guest guest]

What's in a name? Legislation would end use of the term 'mental retardation'

November 19, 2009 | 11:19 am

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2009/11/whats-in-a-name-legislatio\

n-would-end-use-of-the-term-mental-retardation.html

We health bloggers and reporters think about words a lot and care about using

the right ones. So we were interested when we heard that a legislative proposal

offered in the U.S. Senate recently would outlaw further use of the terms

" mentally retarded " or " mental retardation " from federal statutes and policy

papers in the area of health, education and labor.

The proposed measure would replace those terms with " intellectual disability "

and " individual with an intellectual disability. "

The Arc of the United States — the nation's largest and most active advocacy

group for those with intellectual and related developmental disabilities — calls

the terms " mental retardation " and " mentally retarded " " outdated " and

" stigmatizing. " The group applauds the measure, which was proposed by Sen.

Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.), and says it's high time that federal language was

updated.

" 'Retard,' 'retarded' and 'retardation,' once accepted medical terms, are now

used only to insult and demean people, " said V. Berns, chief executive of

the Arc, in a statement supporting Mikulski's proposal. He added, " Changing how

we talk about people with disabilities is a critical step in promoting and

protecting their basic civil rights. "

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention already use the updated term, as

does the Office of the President — to which the Committee for People With

Intellectual Disabilities reports. But some landmark laws — including the

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Higher Education Act and

the law known as No Child Left Behind — still use the terms.

The measure replicates a law recently passed by the land State Assembly. As

they deliberated, state lawmakers heard from 13-year-old Nick Marcellino, whose

sister, , has an intellectual disability. " Some say we shouldn't worry about

the words, just the way we treat people. But when you think about it, what you

call people is how we treat them. If we change the words, maybe it'll be the

start of a new attitude toward people with intellectual disabilities. "

Mikulski has dubbed her measure 's Law, in honor of Nick's sister.

There are 7 million people living with intellectual and/or developmental

disabilities in the United States, and the origins of their disabilities are

legion, ranging from birth injury, illness, genetic defect (a term that some may

also challenge) and environmental factors. A recent post here at Booster Shots

talked about a raft of medications now under study in the treatment of Down

syndrome and about a survey that found that 60% of parents of offspring with the

disorder would likely take a pass on such a treatment if it became available.

So, is it political correctness run amok, or is it a group's right of

self-determination to stipulate (by law, no less) how they should be referred

to? There are plenty of precedents to point to. But some will resist being

dictated to when it comes to language.