Guest guest Posted May 25, 2006 Report Share Posted May 25, 2006 I was *not* going to jump in on this conversation. However, Melonie brought up the point I have had in my head in regard to the *person first the label second.* The difference is, "Mr. in room 52A is recovering from a CVA and..." vs. "The CVA in room 52A recovering from..." THAT is the difference between people first and diagnosis/label second. I think that medical field DOES do that, different times and different places. Some may be more appropriate than others. I also think that we see these emergency room (and the like) shows on TV...and they DO often refer to people with the diagnosis/issue first. There is a reason for that...quick identification. At *that* moment in time, *quick* IS what matters most. HTH anyone else that may have an issue with labels. In a message dated 5/25/2006 12:19:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, SillyYaks writes: Yes, we should call people by their names... such as Mr. in room 52A is recovering from a CVA (Stroke) and is experiencing left-sided weakness and aphasia. However, we can say there is a stroke patient/resident in room 52A. I think a label can help IDENTIFY someone is a positive manner and can help increase awareness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2006 Report Share Posted May 25, 2006 I was *not* going to jump in on this conversation. However, Melonie brought up the point I have had in my head in regard to the *person first the label second.* The difference is, "Mr. in room 52A is recovering from a CVA and..." vs. "The CVA in room 52A recovering from..." THAT is the difference between people first and diagnosis/label second. I think that medical field DOES do that, different times and different places. Some may be more appropriate than others. I also think that we see these emergency room (and the like) shows on TV...and they DO often refer to people with the diagnosis/issue first. There is a reason for that...quick identification. At *that* moment in time, *quick* IS what matters most. HTH anyone else that may have an issue with labels. In a message dated 5/25/2006 12:19:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, SillyYaks writes: Yes, we should call people by their names... such as Mr. in room 52A is recovering from a CVA (Stroke) and is experiencing left-sided weakness and aphasia. However, we can say there is a stroke patient/resident in room 52A. I think a label can help IDENTIFY someone is a positive manner and can help increase awareness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2006 Report Share Posted May 25, 2006 I was *not* going to jump in on this conversation. However, Melonie brought up the point I have had in my head in regard to the *person first the label second.* The difference is, "Mr. in room 52A is recovering from a CVA and..." vs. "The CVA in room 52A recovering from..." THAT is the difference between people first and diagnosis/label second. I think that medical field DOES do that, different times and different places. Some may be more appropriate than others. I also think that we see these emergency room (and the like) shows on TV...and they DO often refer to people with the diagnosis/issue first. There is a reason for that...quick identification. At *that* moment in time, *quick* IS what matters most. HTH anyone else that may have an issue with labels. In a message dated 5/25/2006 12:19:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, SillyYaks writes: Yes, we should call people by their names... such as Mr. in room 52A is recovering from a CVA (Stroke) and is experiencing left-sided weakness and aphasia. However, we can say there is a stroke patient/resident in room 52A. I think a label can help IDENTIFY someone is a positive manner and can help increase awareness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2006 Report Share Posted May 25, 2006 Well, I caught the tail end of this thread, too. I've run into people who are very sensitive about labels. My son has Down's Syndrome. It doesn't bother me to say "a Down's kid," but some parents get real bent out of shape over it. They say it puts the diagnosis before the kid. My youngest has had mild Asperger's Syndrome noticed (for lack of a better word) by the psychiatrist, but she suggested we not get the label as it's very mild and wouldn't change anything. Having celiac does change things. It changes how we handle food, what we eat, how other's handle food. I have to ask at pot lucks when someone brings something with mayonaise in it if they opened a brand new jar, or it's the one they make sandwiches from. I don't want to miss out on pot lucks, and I don't want to appear rude by not eating anything but what I brought. Labels can help if they change something. Just my 2 cents worth...... --loriann aka Victree the Christian clown Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2006 Report Share Posted May 25, 2006 Well, I caught the tail end of this thread, too. I've run into people who are very sensitive about labels. My son has Down's Syndrome. It doesn't bother me to say "a Down's kid," but some parents get real bent out of shape over it. They say it puts the diagnosis before the kid. My youngest has had mild Asperger's Syndrome noticed (for lack of a better word) by the psychiatrist, but she suggested we not get the label as it's very mild and wouldn't change anything. Having celiac does change things. It changes how we handle food, what we eat, how other's handle food. I have to ask at pot lucks when someone brings something with mayonaise in it if they opened a brand new jar, or it's the one they make sandwiches from. I don't want to miss out on pot lucks, and I don't want to appear rude by not eating anything but what I brought. Labels can help if they change something. Just my 2 cents worth...... --loriann aka Victree the Christian clown Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2006 Report Share Posted May 25, 2006 Well, I caught the tail end of this thread, too. I've run into people who are very sensitive about labels. My son has Down's Syndrome. It doesn't bother me to say "a Down's kid," but some parents get real bent out of shape over it. They say it puts the diagnosis before the kid. My youngest has had mild Asperger's Syndrome noticed (for lack of a better word) by the psychiatrist, but she suggested we not get the label as it's very mild and wouldn't change anything. Having celiac does change things. It changes how we handle food, what we eat, how other's handle food. I have to ask at pot lucks when someone brings something with mayonaise in it if they opened a brand new jar, or it's the one they make sandwiches from. I don't want to miss out on pot lucks, and I don't want to appear rude by not eating anything but what I brought. Labels can help if they change something. Just my 2 cents worth...... --loriann aka Victree the Christian clown Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2006 Report Share Posted May 25, 2006 I had vowed not to get back into this, but... There are often very valid reasons why LABEL is better than person in medical communication. 1. it is faster and often faster is crucial in medical care - " We've got a flatline in 23! " is something I said more than once in my former career. When the child has no pulse, that is ONLY thing that is relevant. Would you really want someone to take the time to say " , currently admitted to the PICU following cardiac surgery has no pulse at this time? " 2. privacy - doctors make rounds in the hallways in most hospitals. The reporting physician can give the team a complete report based on diagnosis and symptoms without violating the patient's legal right to privacy by using their name in a public hallway. Violate patient confidentiality and feel the wrath of JCAHO. 3. more likely to be remembered by diagnosis and medical history - wake up the senior resident at 3 am and tell him you're calling about Suzy Q and there's a 90% chance the answer will be " Huh? " Tell you're calling about the liver TX patient and he's got instant recall of the info on the case. No, not every hospital operates exactly this same way, but many of them do. BTW, if you really want to tick off many of the senior doctors I know, refer to the medical " industry " in their hearing. Some of them still believe medicine is an art, and " industry " is a dirty word meaning " drug company. " Maureen > > > I was *not* going to jump in on this conversation. However, Melonie brought > up the point I have had in my head in regard to the *person first the label > second.* > > The difference is, " Mr. in room 52A is recovering from a CVA and... " > vs. " The CVA in room 52A recovering from... " THAT is the difference between > people first and diagnosis/label second. > > I think that medical field DOES do that, different times and different > places. Some may be more appropriate than others. > I also think that we see these emergency room (and the like) shows on > TV...and they DO often refer to people with the diagnosis/issue first. There is a > reason for that...quick identification. At *that* moment in time, *quick* IS > what matters most. > > HTH anyone else that may have an issue with labels. > > > > In a message dated 5/25/2006 12:19:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, > SillyYaks writes: > > Yes, we should call people by their > names... such as Mr. in room 52A is recovering from a CVA > (Stroke) and is experiencing left-sided weakness and aphasia. > However, we can say there is a stroke patient/resident in room 52A. > I think a label can help IDENTIFY someone is a positive manner and > can help increase awareness. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2006 Report Share Posted May 25, 2006 I had vowed not to get back into this, but... There are often very valid reasons why LABEL is better than person in medical communication. 1. it is faster and often faster is crucial in medical care - " We've got a flatline in 23! " is something I said more than once in my former career. When the child has no pulse, that is ONLY thing that is relevant. Would you really want someone to take the time to say " , currently admitted to the PICU following cardiac surgery has no pulse at this time? " 2. privacy - doctors make rounds in the hallways in most hospitals. The reporting physician can give the team a complete report based on diagnosis and symptoms without violating the patient's legal right to privacy by using their name in a public hallway. Violate patient confidentiality and feel the wrath of JCAHO. 3. more likely to be remembered by diagnosis and medical history - wake up the senior resident at 3 am and tell him you're calling about Suzy Q and there's a 90% chance the answer will be " Huh? " Tell you're calling about the liver TX patient and he's got instant recall of the info on the case. No, not every hospital operates exactly this same way, but many of them do. BTW, if you really want to tick off many of the senior doctors I know, refer to the medical " industry " in their hearing. Some of them still believe medicine is an art, and " industry " is a dirty word meaning " drug company. " Maureen > > > I was *not* going to jump in on this conversation. However, Melonie brought > up the point I have had in my head in regard to the *person first the label > second.* > > The difference is, " Mr. in room 52A is recovering from a CVA and... " > vs. " The CVA in room 52A recovering from... " THAT is the difference between > people first and diagnosis/label second. > > I think that medical field DOES do that, different times and different > places. Some may be more appropriate than others. > I also think that we see these emergency room (and the like) shows on > TV...and they DO often refer to people with the diagnosis/issue first. There is a > reason for that...quick identification. At *that* moment in time, *quick* IS > what matters most. > > HTH anyone else that may have an issue with labels. > > > > In a message dated 5/25/2006 12:19:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, > SillyYaks writes: > > Yes, we should call people by their > names... such as Mr. in room 52A is recovering from a CVA > (Stroke) and is experiencing left-sided weakness and aphasia. > However, we can say there is a stroke patient/resident in room 52A. > I think a label can help IDENTIFY someone is a positive manner and > can help increase awareness. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2006 Report Share Posted May 25, 2006 I had vowed not to get back into this, but... There are often very valid reasons why LABEL is better than person in medical communication. 1. it is faster and often faster is crucial in medical care - " We've got a flatline in 23! " is something I said more than once in my former career. When the child has no pulse, that is ONLY thing that is relevant. Would you really want someone to take the time to say " , currently admitted to the PICU following cardiac surgery has no pulse at this time? " 2. privacy - doctors make rounds in the hallways in most hospitals. The reporting physician can give the team a complete report based on diagnosis and symptoms without violating the patient's legal right to privacy by using their name in a public hallway. Violate patient confidentiality and feel the wrath of JCAHO. 3. more likely to be remembered by diagnosis and medical history - wake up the senior resident at 3 am and tell him you're calling about Suzy Q and there's a 90% chance the answer will be " Huh? " Tell you're calling about the liver TX patient and he's got instant recall of the info on the case. No, not every hospital operates exactly this same way, but many of them do. BTW, if you really want to tick off many of the senior doctors I know, refer to the medical " industry " in their hearing. Some of them still believe medicine is an art, and " industry " is a dirty word meaning " drug company. " Maureen > > > I was *not* going to jump in on this conversation. However, Melonie brought > up the point I have had in my head in regard to the *person first the label > second.* > > The difference is, " Mr. in room 52A is recovering from a CVA and... " > vs. " The CVA in room 52A recovering from... " THAT is the difference between > people first and diagnosis/label second. > > I think that medical field DOES do that, different times and different > places. Some may be more appropriate than others. > I also think that we see these emergency room (and the like) shows on > TV...and they DO often refer to people with the diagnosis/issue first. There is a > reason for that...quick identification. At *that* moment in time, *quick* IS > what matters most. > > HTH anyone else that may have an issue with labels. > > > > In a message dated 5/25/2006 12:19:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, > SillyYaks writes: > > Yes, we should call people by their > names... such as Mr. in room 52A is recovering from a CVA > (Stroke) and is experiencing left-sided weakness and aphasia. > However, we can say there is a stroke patient/resident in room 52A. > I think a label can help IDENTIFY someone is a positive manner and > can help increase awareness. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2006 Report Share Posted May 25, 2006 > > My youngest has had mild Asperger's Syndrome noticed (for lack of a > better word) by the psychiatrist, but she suggested we not get the > label as it's very mild and wouldn't change anything. For my daughter, having the label was the difference between getting school services and not getting school services; between getting an IEP and not getting an IEP. I do have conditions in her IEP based on her gluten, casein and citrus free status as well. > I have to ask at pot lucks when someone brings something with > mayonaise in it if they opened a brand new jar, or it's the one they > make sandwiches from. I don't want to miss out on pot lucks, and I > don't want to appear rude by not eating anything but what I > brought. I'm past worrying about what people think. I can't afford to take chances. There are simply too many people who are well meaning but don't understand. I've had too many people say to me something along the lines of " that bread's not made from wheat, it's white " . I bring more than my share to pot lucks so that my daughter gets a bit of variety. I'm extremely open about all our dietary restrictions (we're off more than just gluten) so I'm never openly get judged by people. Who knows what they say behind my back and honestly I don't care. For me, it's actually been an opportunity to educate people. It never ceases to amaze me how many times I end up hearing something along the lines of " my neighbour, aunt, mother, etc has that; can you tell me more " . Trudy in NH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.