Somewhere during my training as minister, I stopped using expressions such as 'the poor' or 'the blind' because it was made pretty clear to me that these people groups don't like to be so described. Whilst even JC used such expressions ('the poor will always be with you'), I think there is a valid point to be made. But it is amazing how often I hear or read references to 'definite article, adjective' and find myself wanting to say 'The deaf what? Rabbit?' or 'The disabled what? Light switch?' (I've never liked the phrase 'disabled toilet' because I'd rather find one that was functional, but there you go). I wouldn't like to be defined as part of 'the lefthanded' or 'the myopic' (both of which are true) - so why would anyone else? I know I'm being pedantic, and I know some folk wouldn't know what an adjective was, let alone a definite article, but it doesn't take much effort to speak about 'people with disabilties' or 'deaf people' and it does remind us, importantly, of the fact that they, like we, are PEOPLE not objects.
Another rant over!!!!
Comments
Endorse your comments. In the NHS we have gone through a number of fashions regarding what to call the people we treat. We started with the simple "patient", and have since moved through "client" to the current fad for patients as consumers/customers (ie always right in what they demand.....? that's another story)
For example, we have gone from "diabetic patients" through "diabetics" and now talk about "people living with diabetes". Perhaps the poor should now be "people living with (or in) poverty".
Sometimes these terms arise out of a need for a linguistic shorthand. However, that certainly doesn't mean we can be excused for failing to remember that they are people first and whatever else later.
I recently had cause to remind a midwifery student of my acquaintance that pregnant women are people too, and that she should always remember to talk to the head, not just the bump. I think the same principle applies here.