Ads


The “R” Word

I hear the word a lot. Less than I used to, but more than I’d prefer. The word is “retarded.” To many it remains a humorous synonym for words like “uncoordinated” or “stupid.” I probably hear it more than most because I’m really attuned to it. When I was a kid, it was common for boys to tease each other with the word “gay.” But that was ultimately declared unspeakable by polite society. We forced it out of our vocabularies.

That hasn’t yet happened for what families like mine call the “R” word. People—even those in polite society—still use it. They use it casually. Even in my presence. Even when they know that my daughter has Down syndrome. It seems they just can’t help it.

There are those who say that “retarded” is a medical term which has been used for decades to describe developmental disability and so it can’t be or shouldn’t be excised from the language. To which I reply, when was the last time you heard someone referred to as a cripple, or a spastic, or a vegetable? All terms once considered medically appropriate, but which have given way to more sensitive—and, I might add, more accurate—terminologies.

At times, I’ve summoned the courage to have really uncomfortable conversations with people that I genuinely like and who I knew weren’t trying to hurt my feelings or insult my daughter. Sometimes I wonder if I should lighten up. Maybe people don’t intend harm when they casually toss off this humiliating and dehumanizing word. Maybe I should try to give people the benefit of the doubt. Sometimes when you’re going for a laugh you cross the line. It’s innocent. Chill out.

And then something like this happens, and I realize that words matter. They matter a lot.

In case you missed it, let me summarize for you the case of Amelia Rivera and her family. Three-year old Amelia was born with Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome, a chromosomal abnormality that results in distinctive facial features, low muscle tone, delayed growth and development, and a variety of other signs and symptoms. Like many families of children with these types of disabilities, the Riveras know their way around our health care system. For our families, life sometimes seems like an endless string of appointments, lab visits, tests, treatments, and therapies.

The hardest part for most families is maintaining the advocacy mindset. You really have to fight sometimes. There are a lot of obstacles to getting a child like Amelia the health care and educational services she needs. It takes extraordinary dedication and stamina to not simply give up or give in when a so-called expert recommends a course of action that to you seems wrong, lazy, or just plain stupid. Sometimes, you are torn between trusting someone with lots of abbreviations before and after his name, and listening to the voice of warning in your head. Sometimes you feel paranoid. You wonder if everyone isn’t out to trip you up.

Sometimes, as with my “R”-word obsession, you wonder if you should maybe just chill out.

Amelia’s kidneys aren’t working the way they are supposed to and she needs a transplant. According to the Riveras, the surgeons at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) have refused to provide Amelia with the life-saving transplant for a very simple reason: Because she is mentally retarded. According to the Riveras, a doctor declared Amelia ineligible for a transplant—even if the family were able to arrange their own donor—because of her mental disability and for no other medical reason. There would be complications down the road, the doctor said. Difficult complications. Because of her disability, Amelia probably wouldn’t be able to remember to take her medication. Furthermore, this doctor insinuated that it was not his decision alone, but the decision of a committee of CHOP doctors.

That committee may not have an embossed plastic nameplate with the words “Death Panel” on its conference room door, but it ought to. It’s very hard to read the decision of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia as anything other than an Obamacare-emboldened shot across the bow of those who would deign to waste expensive and risky health care treatments on retards.

One of my favorite little games to play with people who think that words don’t matter is to ask them to replace the word “R” word with the “N” word. “Your daughter won’t remember to take her medication because she’s a [“N” word],” doesn’t quite seem as acceptable for a doctor to tell a parent, does it?

I have met people who have fought tooth-and-nail with school districts to keep their kids out of special education classrooms, who have battled with bureaucrats to avoid having label such as “developmentally disabled” and “mentally retarded” placed on their children. Some say, “Why? Why do you fight so hard for such a seemingly small thing?”

Because words matter. They matter a lot.

Matthew Hennessey is a writer and editor who lives in New Canaan, CT. You can follow him on Twitter @MattHennessey.

Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.

Comments:

1.23.2012 | 2:02am
David Nickol says:
Of course words matter and of course people should be sensitive in using even bona fide medical terms that make others upset or uncomfortable. But if you read the mother’s own account, at one point the doctor says the medications the girl will have to take after a transplant may cause brain damage. The mother asks if other children who have transplants would have to take the same medicine. The doctor says yes, but it is different for their daughter, because she *already* has brain damage. Later the mother says:

“So you mean to tell me that as a doctor, you are not recommending the transplant, and when her kidneys fail in six months to a year, you want me to let her die because she is mentally retarded? There is no other medical reason for her not to have this transplant other than she is MENTALLY RETARDED!”

Even by the mother’s own account, the doctor gave a reason other than mental retardation for not proceeding with a kidney transplant—the child is already brain damaged, and she would have to take medication that might do additional brain damage. Whether the doctor gave sufficient reasons for ruling out a kidney transplant, I don't know. Whether he was unduly influenced by Amelia's disabilities, I can't say. But the charge the mother makes ("no other medical reason . . . other than she is mentally retarded") is undercut by here own account.
1.23.2012 | 2:41am
Don Roberto says:
Paganism and materialism go hand in hand. For a person who would condone the brutal slaughter of his or a friend's child, e.g., Obama, what other act is not acceptable, as long as it can be rationalized in a way that does not bring monetary or social disadvantage? 90% of babies with Down Syndrome are murdered in the womb, and in an abortion-on-demand legal environment, there isa clear tendency to abort a disproportionate number of blacks and women, too. Liberals, besides being quick to reject objective morality, are an illogical bunch.

1.23.2012 | 8:27am
Jason says:
Matthew,
Thank you for writing this. I work professionally as a clinical neuropsychologist and part of my job is to determine the degree of cognitive impairment people have. As we work with insurance companies and so forth, we are required to submit certain diagnostic codes from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th Edition). Mental retardation remains a diagnostic code that we are to use for billing purposes, though I hope it changes in the next edition that is due out this year. So, unlike the words cripple, which I do not think appears in the diagnostic codes anymore, retardation remains a medical term, that has unfortunately been subsumed by the masses as a pejorative term. For what it is worth, there is a long history of people taking morally neutral terms and using them in derogatory way. That tendency to me seems to be a heart issue and we should be careful not to burden the terms themselves as problematic, but rather speak to the heart behind the use of derogatory terms.

I hope that you will continue in your advocacy and working to have these terms changed. I also pray that you will continue to pray for changed hearts so that one day, we will reach a point when people no longer feel the need to belittle others with their words.
1.23.2012 | 9:19am
Neil Cowling says:
The acronym "CHOP" in front of "doctors" certainly brings a chilling affect to your post.
1.23.2012 | 10:36am
Norman Kirk says:
I had recently read an article from a friend who's daughter is handicapped.
I myself shake my head when I hear the term used. My son Michael is eleven and has Autism, and it ain't something that is going to go away. To hear people use the "R" word is painful when it is used as a sort of odd curse word to cut someone down. I love my little boy and I can't see how using that term is defines what I love or what someone else hates, or fears, or completely disregards.



The link below goes to Phoebe's Blog "Herding Cats" where she discusses the frustration of the "R" word.
http://phoebeholmes.com/2011/12/23/being-retarded/
1.23.2012 | 11:02am
Nathan Duffy says:
Not to be insensitive (and if it matters, though it shouldn't, my daughter has an 11p chromosome deletion and mental/behavioral abnormalities associated with it), but there is absolutely no argument of any kind presented in this piece. Is there any reason at all to think that these doctors would have come to a different conclusion were it not for the word retarded? Absolutely none whatsoever. Their justification would be the same with or without the use of the word, almost certainly. You can disagree woth their decision -- I do -- but it has nothing to do with the R-word. This is a preposterous (though not 'retarded') claim.
1.23.2012 | 11:42am
David Nickol says:
I sympathize with Matthew Hennessey on the language issue. I have a niece now in her 20s who attended schools considered to be among the best in the country and who could not learn to read or write. I have never in two decades heard the word "retarded" applied to her, and I agree it is an ugly word. On the other hand, I would have to observe that liberals are mocked for "political correctness" for trying to avoid such words as "disabled" (by saying, for example, "physically challenged").

Also, "cripple" is not in and of itself an objectionable word. Saying that a disease is "crippling" or that an accident left someone crippled would generally be considered inoffensive, but calling a person "a cripple" is definitely offensive.

But what is not at all clear in this case is whether there was insensitivity or bias on the part of the doctors or the hospital involved.
1.23.2012 | 12:15pm
Scott Miller says:
Words do matter. They matter because they mean things. As a lawyer, I can vouch for this fact. As the father of a mentally retarded son, I can also relate to the pain in hearing words that sting. We use the word retarded because it's necessary to describe the way things are. This does not mean that the word cannot be or should be misused as a pejorative. Exercising the word from our vocabularies only results in the necessary addition of another word to replace it to describe the same thing. This new word will then, no doubt, be twisted by the unthinking or uncaring in cruel and inappropriate ways, in turn raising the demand for its exclusion from civilized society. We can't realistically expect, much less demand, everyone to be kind and sensitive toward the vulnerable amongst us. The best we can do is set the example and use words carefully as is appropriate to their meaning. Do you need to lighten-up? No. Just appreciate the fact that we live in a fallen world and thank God for the grace to bear up under it. My son, and no doubt your daughter, give us daily examples of how the grace of God is perfected in weakness.
1.23.2012 | 12:36pm
Ben Embry says:
This situation at the children’s hospital came to mind as I began reading to my children ‘Charlotte’s Web’ the other evening. Hopefully, the doctors will be as good as Mr. Arable.

“Where’s Papa going with that axe?” said Fern to her mother as they were setting the table for breakfast.
“Out to the hoghouse,” replied Mrs. Arable. “Some pigs were born last night.”
“I don’t see why he needs an axe,” continued Fern, who was only eight.
“Well,” said her mother, “one of the pigs is a runt. It’s very small and weak and will never amount to anything. So your father has decided to do away with it.”
“Do away with it?” shrieked Fern. “You mean kill it? Just because it’s smaller than the others?”
Mrs. Arable put a pitcher of cream on the table.
“Don’t yell, Fern,” she said. “Your father is right. The pig would probably die anyway.”
Fern pushed a chair out of the way and ran outdoors. The grass was wet and the earth smelled of springtime. Fern’s sneakers were sopping by the time she caught up with her father.
“Please don’t kill it!” she sobbed. “It’s unfair.”
Mr. Arable stopped walking.
“Fern,” he said gently, “you will have to learn to control yourself.”
“Control myself?” yelled Fern. “This is a matter of life and death, and you talk about controlling myself?” Tears ran down her cheeks and she took hold of the axe and tried to pull it out of her father’s hands.
“Fern,” said Mr. Arable, “I know more about raising a litter of pigs than you do. A weakling makes trouble. Now run along!”
“But its unfair,” cried Fern. “A pig couldn’t help being born small, could it? If I had been very small at birth would you have killed me?”
Mr. Arable smiled. “Certainly not,” he said, looking down at his daughter with love. “But this is different. A little girl is one thing. A little runty pig is another.”
“I see no difference,” replied Fern, still hanging on to the ax. “This is the most terrible case of injustice I ever heard of.”
A queer look came over John Arable’s face. He seemed almost ready to cry himself.
“Alright,” he said. “You go back to the house and I will bring the runt when I come in. I’ll let you start it on a bottle, like a baby. Then you’ll see what trouble a pig can be.”…..
1.23.2012 | 1:48pm
Jason says:
Scott,
Thank you for saying more clearly what I had hoped to communicate.
1.23.2012 | 2:20pm
Bill Michie says:
What was formerly correct is, today, incorrect. I was speaking with a retired physician 15 years ago in central Texas. He was heavily involved providing those with mental disabilities useful employment through a grant program. I believe he was in his eighties at that time. We were discussing appropriate language. He told me that when he was in medical school, the correct term for the "R" word was idiot. For much of his career he used that term but as things changed, the language evolved through many iterations. Some terms can bruise others and we need to be sensitive to this. But some words are used that are not intended to hurt. Perhaps what counts most is what is in one's heart.
1.23.2012 | 5:00pm
Sue Sims says:
Scott Miller has explained very clearly the problem here - it's what Steven Pinker calls 'the euphemism treadmill'. The fault is not in the words but what they denote. In the area of physical problems, to quote Wikipedia, 'lame crippled handicapped disabled physically challenged differently abled': if a condition is felt to be undesirable, the word(s) describing it will take on the connotations of the condition and become equally undesirable. Over here in the UK, we have 'special needs' replacing 'learning difficulties' replacing 'educationally sub-normal' which itself replaced various other words before I started teaching in the 1970s. So now kids in the playground will yell 'Special!' at each other. You can't beat language, alas. And while we need to be sensitive, it's also wise to accept the fact that whatever Mr Hennessy wishes his son to be called (and if one wants help from the system, one has to accept classification from the system, as I've learnt with my own Asperger's son), it will eventually become as pejorative as he feels 'retarded' is now.
1.23.2012 | 5:03pm
Sue Sims says:
I'm sorry - I misspelt Mr Hennessey's name and mistook the sex of his daughter. Many apologies: my computer kept not wanting to return to the top of the page.
1.23.2012 | 8:20pm
TO family says:
@scott miller

You are right on the mark, Scott. Where does the censoring of terms end?

I notice that the author uses the term "stupid" quite readily. Is that acceptable?

I am (am not?) surprised by the lack of comment on this article. Nobody wants to touch it, because everyone feels for the plight of any parent/relative/person who suffers from disrespectful, impolite speech. Who can respond to such a situation without hesitatingly responding (if at all) to the one one who chose to make it a public issue, and therefore causing further offense? The author needs to "free" folks to respond, folks who are quite aware of this issue, yet find the term "retarded" acceptable.

Frankly, however, I simply don't get it -- "gay" was used by the author as an analogical example. A correction on his example, from a father with young kids and much playground duty: "Gay" has not been excised from common parlance, nor has it ceased to be a derogatory term used (especially) by young males to make fun of male peers. The author's 'jump' to "retard" needing to be excised doesn't follow, because "gay" has not and probably will not be excised. I can testify: there is no playground in Toronto at which one doesn't hear these words from the kids (without prompting from parents). In addition, J**, K*ke, N*****, Pak*, crack*r, etc. are all used derogatorily. These kids are exposed to the MSM and especially the internet entertainment media which informs them about the "cool" put-down terminology.

To defend the author's use of "stupid" -- it is a perfectly acceptable term, as is "ignoramus", which means something subtly different. However, one accused of being "stupid" or "wrong" (to use the author's words) surely will feel put down, and feel it all is an appropriate and insulting description of who they are, as persons. However, there are "stupid" folks out there; there are "ignorant" folks out there. As well as many other folks who could be described in myriad ways, ALL of which descriptions apparently make those folks "feel bad about themselves".

In closing, I propose that "gay", "fat", "obese", "retarded", "ignorant", "stupid", "affluent", "1%-er", "99%-er", "liberal", "conservative", and "religious", ETC, all be terms which (however folks interpret them) can be, more or less, proudly claimed as one's own.

Everyone in my family has been described by these and other terms; none of us feel it necessary to do anything other than claim as our own these terms (when accurately used), and further, to challenge any and all comers when such terms are used inaccurately to "strengthen" mere ad hominem, bigoted, racist, or patently unfair attacks.

But we must admit that, clearly speaking, we (as a family of individuals) are all of these things, and more.
1.23.2012 | 10:26pm
Look, words matter, I admit and affirm that point; I am very picky about word usage. But context matters as well. It is undeniably wrong to mock someone or to try to hurt them with the "R" word. But if I say that a rule is "retarded" I am in no way slandering any person, I am merely pointing out that that rule is dumb, stupid, not in line with common-sense. The word has connotations beyond the medical definition, and we would do well to recognize that. I understand that the word may be hurtful to some people who are sensitive to it, but by blacklisting the "R" word as "insensitive" and "hateful" risks taking a page out of the Liberals' handbook, we risk a tyranny of the minority.
1.24.2012 | 12:28am
Nancy D. says:
Since there is no compelling reason not to do the surgery, I will pray the hospital will change their mind and give Amelia the chance to prolong her life that she deserves.
1.24.2012 | 4:39am
Sue says:
Look, I think we have become over-sensitive. It is becoming impossible to communicate with anyone for fear one will use a term that is not the latest acceptable term, assuming one knows what the problem is to begin with.

My sister is mildly retarded - yes! I said it. It is the quickest way to let people know what the issue is. We don't say it in front of her and people are very gracious to her when they know why her responses are a little off.

We lost a niece at two weeks old because of a chromosome disorder. She was born with a cleft palate, mental retardation, and a host of other problems requiring her to be tube fed. We loved her completely and intensely until the day she died. We still mourn her loss but rejoice that we had the privilege of having her in our life.

I have two children with a progressive neurological disorder. There is steady decline in physical abilities. There is no cure. There is no way to stop or slow the progress.

Someone, trying to be charitable, assumed that one of my sons was somehow mentally affected and commented - out of earshot of the son he was referencing - how wonderful it was for us to take him out with the family. He had no way of knowing that that particular son is a research scientist. We all smiled politely without bothering to correct him because he was being thoughtful if inaccurate.

This son will be marrying a beautiful young lady this summer who accepts him as he is and as he will be. The other son is pursuing a very fulfilling career in politics. They know that they are valuable human beings loved by their friends and family.

There are many things to be upset about, even angry about, but the use of words not meant to hurtful should be treated as just that - no more.
1.24.2012 | 11:56am
williambauer says:
We cannot use the Q word, cannot use the N word, cannot use the F word (of course) and now Carnot use the R word. Black men can naturally use the N word. What a queer idea that we cannot use the word Retarded, as it only means (from the Latin) SLOW. The word is incidentally a medical diagnosis.
1.26.2012 | 9:17am
PamelaW says:
In 1995, Sandra Jensen's doctor recommended her for a heart/lung transplant that was approved by her insurance company but denied by both transplant evaluation teams in the state of California. Her exclusion from consideration was categorical - people with Down syndrome were 'not appropriate candidates' just because they had Down syndrome. Ms. Jensen went on to become the first person in the world with Down syndrome to have a heart-lung transplant, and is credited with moving people with disabilities away from automatic exclusion from transplant consideration, if only to selective inclusion.

I believe at that time, California had a Republican Governor and the President of the United States was a Democrat.

It is unfortunate that misrepresentations of our current President's character and beliefs have been reflected in this discussion. There is a great diversity of opinions and awareness of disability related issues in every political party, bureaucracy, and medical institution. I would appreciate a more respectful dialogue among disability advocates on all issues, as we have allies with diverse political views who have shown support and encouragement for our children with developmental disabilities.

Those of us who are distressed by the high rate of terminations in pregnancies with a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome must acknowledge that there is close to an equal number of women who describe themselves as pro-life and pro-choice. So about half of those who choose to terminate with a prenatal diagnosis identify themselves as pro-life.

While we advocate for sensitive and respectful language, medical rights for individuals with developmental disabilities, and all other issues, we must recognize that we have more in common with one another that we have differences. These issues are complex and we are moving forward, thanks in part to bipartisan support for human rights and civil rights for people with disabilities. And we must not forget that we owe a great deal to advocates who have developmental disabilities themselves, like Sandra Jensen. I am sure that her life inspired the groups that formed to study and inform us about the issues involved. See:

Lives Worth Saving: Organ Transplantation and People with Disabilities
http://www.mnddc.org/news/newsitems/transplant.html

Organ Transplants and Developmental Disabilities
http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art174792.asp

People First Language Awareness
http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art174792.asp

Thoughts from the Middle of the Night
http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art32533.asp
2.16.2012 | 1:58pm
The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia today apologized to Amelia's family. If you're interested, you can read about it here:

http://www.news-medical.net/news/20120215/Hospital-apologizes-to-Amelia-Rivera-who-was-denied-kidney-transplant.aspx
type the text above in the box below

Links

Blogs

Find Us

Contact