Do You Care About ‘Cancer Survivors’?
October 7, 2010 at 5:40 pm 1 comment
While I do enjoy a good conversation and find using words in print as one of my most satisfying hobbies, I generally distain academic arguments about the meaning of words. Perhaps this is left over from being an English major and sitting in dread while classmates spent hours debating the poetic meanings of every noun, verb and adjective in a 500 page book. They would talk about their personal experiences and they would talk about historical context and they would talk about words Greek or Latin roots.
“Perhaps the wagon was just ‘red’,” I would say.
They would counter, “But what does ‘red’ mean in the context of the author’s sexual orientation?”
I value the importance of words, but I do not think they are perfect. To me words are a means to an end. In my opinion, a story does not really need to be told, it needs to be experienced. Words cannot truly give you the story. You have to have the experience. Words, even the right words, are inaccurate and merely labels.
For this reason my gut wrenched when I started reading this article about ‘cancer survivors’ from Slate that was forwarded to me. “Not another gagging discussion about the meaning of words,” I thought. “Regardless of what we call them cancer survivors are still themselves. A label does not change them or what they experience. It does not change what they feel they have or have not survived. It does not change their face, their smile or grimace.”
Then I remembered my belief that communication is central to healthcare. That a good physician must use the best words possible to a patient. Meaning is crucial in what a physician says to a patient. Every word that is said in the physician-patient setting must be constantly raked over the metaphorical coals of every possible context. If a change in a word or phrase can be made to help patients fully understand their choices then it should be made. Even if the modification does not address every imperfection of the label it will keep the conversation fresh.
Entry filed under: practice thoughts. Tags: cancer, communication, definitions, language, meaning, practice thoughts, Slate.
1.
Brian | October 30, 2010 at 5:56 pm
Words should be used like numbers. Every number has a unique and precise meaning. Granted, my college education was in engineering, so others may not appreciate the utility of such a precise communication system unless they’ve been exposed to the predictive power of mathematical modeling.
Predicting the future is an important aspect of healthcare. Patients often turn to their providers for guidance through the unfamiliar. Words used as numbers make it possible for providers to clearly and precisely express their predictions. Mind you, accuracy is a separate issue.
The term survivor should therefore have a unique and precise definition, for clarity. I support a variation of the original “living X years beyond diagnosis” definition, where X corresponds to the life span of the 50th percentile of patients with a particular cancer type. But is survivor really the best descriptor for former cancer patients?
You make two great points: one about patient experience and the other about patient communication. Both points suggest that the word survivor is not always the best descriptor. Regarding experience, survivor may inaccurately describe a deformed “ectomy” recipient who personally feels more like a victim. And regarding communication (especially in provider vocabulary), survivor may falsely imply that successful cancer outcomes are necessarily measured by extension of life, when in truth a non-survivor (and associated providers) may be completely satisfied with an expedited closure and peaceful death.