Politicial Correctcness That Hardly Seems To Serve Its Purpose Or Why Bother?

So there I was in the Christian Science Reading Room. Or maybe, just maybe, it was a different venue.

And I find myself talking to a doctor who serves a very, very underserved (badly served?) demographic.

And he refrers to his patients’ very bad Type II Diabetes compliance.

And I (IIANAMD) say (having spent much of my life among medical doctor friends and families): “Oh, so you have a very noncompliant populace.”

And he, sternly, says: “Oh no. We are not supposed to say ‘noncompliant’ any more. We are told to refer, if we must, to a ‘poorly adherent population.’”

I understand the purpose of PC. I understand why we don’t (as we might) say “fat dumbasses who are too stupid fat and lazy to care if their legs get chopped off.”

But even then – how does this help?

The Euphemism Treadmill

I believe it’s now called the Circumlocution Conveyer Belt.

We’re all to sensitive about hurting other people’s feelings.

As REM said, “Everybody hurts.”

I think the rationale is that one “complies” with orders but “adheres” to regimens. So for a physician to use the term “compliance” rather than “adherence” implies an attitude of arrogance towards patients… i.e., the physician is regarding him/herself as someone who gives orders rather than advice. Continued use of the word reinforces that mindset. It’s subtle, but it does happen … certain words tend to trigger certain schemas, sometimes even without the person realizing that that schema is being triggered or that an alternate schema might be considered. (Another example of this is the use of the word “war”, vs. “occupation”, to refer to what is currently going on in Iraq. The former is more likely to lead to the idea of it as something that can be “won” or “lost”.) So there is some utility, at least in theory, of training physicians out of using such terms.

If his patients don’t adhere well, why doesn’t he coat them with a suitable glue?

Ahem. Equine-based adhesion paste.

That’s not political correctness, at least not the way I understand it. It IS a ridiculous euphemism that’s being substituted for another ridiculous euphemism.

What’s the original term?

Bunch of morons that won’t take their medication and follow their diet. Noncompliant has the benefit of being shorter.

I guess that qualifies. But so could anything, if you take the meaning and rephrase it as an insult. I always think of a euphemism being used for something that is inherently insulting (or vulgar, profane, etc.).

I mean, let’s say someone calls me a Doper. They could be using Doper to mean a member of this board, or they could define it as a know-it-all good-for-nothing who has nothing better to do in his life than to type at people he’s never met. (Or they could be calling me a [worthless] drug addict, I guess. :slight_smile: )