Yet More PC Idiocy...

[Guinevere]

guin, doesn t the idea of people suggesting, ordering, or coercing other people to use or not use certain words, or even to think in certain ways, bother you at all?

And where, precisely, does the WHO statement do that?

[Lord Jim]

Deleted double post

[Lord Jim]

Okay that weird thing that happened to my other post a few days ago happened again...

Here's how that post was supposed to look:

guin, doesn t the idea of people suggesting, ordering, or coercing other people to use or not use certain words, or even to think in certain ways, bother you at all?

And where, precisely, does the WHO statement do that?

Uh, in the first sentence:

8 May 2015 | GENEVA - WHO today called on scientists, national authorities and the media to follow best practices in naming new human infectious diseases to minimize unnecessary negative effects on nations, economies and people.

And again explicitly in paragraph three:

Diseases are often given common names by people outside of the scientific community. Once disease names are established in common usage through the Internet and social media, they are difficult to change, even if an inappropriate name [in our opinion]is being used. Therefore, it is important that whoever first reports on a newly identified human disease uses an appropriate[in our opinion]name that is scientifically sound and socially acceptable.

And again in paragraph six:

Terms that should be avoided in disease names include geographic locations (e.g. Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, Spanish Flu, Rift Valley fever), people’s names (e.g. Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, Chagas disease), species of animal or food (e.g. swine flu, bird flu, monkey pox), cultural, population, industry or occupational references (e.g. legionnaires), and terms that incite undue fear (e.g. unknown, fatal, epidemic).

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/not ... seases/en/

Even those of us from The Planet Dumb can sort that one out...

[Crackpot]

Try using tags instead of image tags.

[Joe Guy]

The Crackpotster is correct. You should have used quote instead of img

[Lord Jim]

I realized I had made that mistake, but what I didn't realize until just now, is that my "edit" "quote" etc. buttons hadn't disappeared; I just had to scroll waaay over to the right to find them. (Which is how I was able to now get rid of the original post.)

[Crackpot]

(Insert obligatory "old man" joke)

[Econoline]

(Insert obligatory "waaay over to the right" joke)

[Guinevere]

Context apparently doesn't matter to either of you two.

[Lord Jim]

What part of the "context" of the statement the WHO issued would negate what appears to be the clearly stated intention to get people to "use or not use certain words" in describing diseases?

What am I leaving out that in terms of "context" that completely changes the meaning of what looks like very straightforward language?

[Big RR]

Therefore, it is important that whoever first reports on a newly identified human disease uses an appropriate[in our opinion]name that is scientifically sound and socially acceptable.

Come on Jim, using a scientifically appropriate name is a no brainer--or do you dispute that. Read the rest of their text and you'll see why the health professionals would want scientific accuracy and precision in names so they can glean the immediate information. It is one reason that botanists and zoologists use the scientifically appropriate names for animals and plants rather than relying on the colloquial ones. Is there a difference between a cougar and a mountain lion? I don't know but the scientific name of each would tell me immediately.

As for socially acceptable; again, I maintain this encourages reporting. A small island might not want their name to be associated with a serious disease (thus decreasing their tourism); the same might well be true for bigger nations for similar reasons. And so, the diseases go unreported until one scientist or nation reports it to the WHO and brings it international attention. Is trying to encourage reporting automatically PC nonsense?

I just don't understand the tempest in the teapot this has stirred up. Is it really so wrong to be scientifically accurate when dealing with health crises?

[wesw]

I m getting a headache....

....got any acetylsalicylic acid?

[wesw]

I have to go feed my domestic canid....

[Big RR]

I m getting a headache....

....got any acetylsalicylic acid?

No, but I have some acetaminophen--or would you like to buy the brand (Tylenol) name at a higher price and pay for the packaging?

[wesw]

I prefer ibuprofen really, but my kidneys are begging me to lay off it for a while.....

[Lord Jim]

Read the rest of their text and you'll see why the health professionals would want scientific accuracy and precision in names so they can glean the immediate information.

Big RR, the WHO statement makes it crystal clear that these "guidelines" have absolutely nothing to do with what they the scientific community uses to characterize diseases. They state this in so many words:

these best practices only apply to disease names for common usage, they also do not affect the work of existing international authoritative bodies responsible for scientific taxonomy and nomenclature of microorganisms.

Since they have chosen to misuse a term taken from private business ("best practices") to act as cover for this PC project, let me suggest another one for them; "core competencies"...

And let me further suggest that rather than wasting energy and resources on an ideologically driven crusade to try to direct how the public refers to various diseases, that the WHO focus on its core competencies. (Assuming it has any....)

That seems like a no-brainer to me...

[Big RR]

Jim--it did not say that the names have "absolutely nothing" to do with what the scientific community calls a disease, what it did say was :

The new best practices do not replace the existing ICD [International classification of Diseases] system, but rather provide an interim solution prior to the assignment of a final ICD disease name. As these best practices only apply to disease names for common [and often clinical] usage, they also do not affect the work of existing international authoritative bodies responsible for scientific taxonomy and nomenclature of microorganisms.

yes, they are names in "common use", but this refers to use in the clinical community, those who often discover and later treat the diseases, likely physicians and other clinicians and not scientists.

But they as suggest the names should have some scientific rigor:

Diseases are often given common names by people outside of the scientific community. Once disease names are established in common usage through the Internet and social media, they are difficult to change, even if an inappropriate name is being used. Therefore, it is important that whoever first reports on a newly identified human disease (usually a physician or other clinician] uses an appropriate name that is scientifically sound and socially acceptable

.

...

The best practices state that a disease name should consist of generic descriptive terms, based on the symptoms that the disease causes (e.g. respiratory disease, neurologic syndrome, watery diarrhoea) and more specific descriptive terms when robust information is available on how the disease manifests, who it affects, its severity or seasonality (e.g. progressive, juvenile, severe, winter). If the pathogen that causes the disease is known, it should be part of the disease name (e.g. coronavirus, influenza virus, salmonella).


[/quote]

So they are suggesting that there be sufficient scientific rigor in the names to provide physicians and other clinicians with usable information not contained in something like Hong Kong Flu or Monkey Fever. Such is common, as physicians often prescribe drugs by their generic names, something usually less informative than the full scientific name but more informative than the trade name.

As for the requirement of social acceptability, they also describe the consequences of failure to do so:

In recent years, several new human infectious diseases have emerged. The use of names such as ‘swine flu’ and ‘Middle East Respiratory Syndrome’ has had unintended negative impacts by stigmatizing certain communities or economic sectors,” says Dr Keiji Fukuda, Assistant Director-General for Health Security, WHO. “This may seem like a trivial issue to some, but disease names really do matter to the people who are directly affected. We’ve seen certain disease names provoke a backlash against members of particular religious or ethnic communities, create unjustified barriers to travel, commerce and trade, and trigger needless slaughtering of food animals. This can have serious consequences for peoples’ lives and livelihoods.”

I just don't see what is wrong in suggesting (not even demanding or mandating) that disease names have sufficient scientific rigor to help physicians and other clinicians, and avoid the use of names which produce no positive results and risk serious consequences which are unintended, but real nevertheless.

[oldr_n_wsr]

I can understand the call for "scientific description" when naming a disease/virus. But sometimes those names are long, not pronounceable nor understood by us commoners.

[Big RR]

oldr--I guess we'd have to see what they propose in actuality, but my guess is that it would be something like juvenile infectious upper respiratory disease. That gives some information about the symptoms and who it affects and that it is contagious--I imagine other descriptors can be inserted as well.

[wesw]

juvenile upper respiratory whatsits could refer to hundreds of conditions. whooping cough is whooping cough.....