Thank you, Dr Lex! I have a few more of my personal annoyances: There is no such word as "nare", the singular of nares is naris; there is no such word as "diverticuli", the pleural of diverticulum is diverticula; it's not "epididymi" when referring to both, it's epididymides...and "elephantitis" must be referring to a red,hot elephant in pain dripping in pus :)
While I agree with most of the expressed issues with the inappropriate and inaccurate use of language in medicine, I must disagree with the arguments regarding the use of "appreciate" when describing the recognition of certain physical findings on physical exam. One of the several definitions of appreciate is "to be fully conscious of; be aware of; detect; eg. to appreciate the dangers of a situation." (www.dictionary.com) I therefore endorse (i.e. approve, support, or sustain) the continued use of "appreciate" as an acceptable polysyllabic term for see/hear/feel/smell. Off to polish my monocle and gaze upon my B.A. in English one more time. Keep up the great work!
As someone training to enter the field of toxicology, I am no stranger to arguments about terminology. I too was once the medical student scolded about using the phrase "substernal chest pain". It truly is an imprecise term since you believe it means inferior to the sternum and the medical students clearly meant it to be deep to the sternum. However, I have never placed a central line in the retroclavian vein, nor have I ever written an order for a retrocutaneous insulin injection. There are many anatomical structures where the "sub" prefix means "deep to" and not "inferior". I have done my best to only quibble over small details when it actually affects patient care. I would never correct a medical student when I know exactly what they mean by the term substernal.
To join the conversation, you need to subscribe.
Sign up today for full access to all episodes and to join the conversation.
Maryida K. - December 3, 2015 9:37 AM
Thank you, Dr Lex! I have a few more of my personal annoyances: There is no such word as "nare", the singular of nares is naris; there is no such word as "diverticuli", the pleural of diverticulum is diverticula; it's not "epididymi" when referring to both, it's epididymides...and "elephantitis" must be referring to a red,hot elephant in pain dripping in pus :)
John C., M.D. - December 7, 2015 1:51 PM
While I agree with most of the expressed issues with the inappropriate and inaccurate use of language in medicine, I must disagree with the arguments regarding the use of "appreciate" when describing the recognition of certain physical findings on physical exam. One of the several definitions of appreciate is "to be fully conscious of; be aware of; detect; eg. to appreciate the dangers of a situation." (www.dictionary.com) I therefore endorse (i.e. approve, support, or sustain) the continued use of "appreciate" as an acceptable polysyllabic term for see/hear/feel/smell. Off to polish my monocle and gaze upon my B.A. in English one more time. Keep up the great work!
David L. - May 14, 2016 8:13 PM
As someone training to enter the field of toxicology, I am no stranger to arguments about terminology. I too was once the medical student scolded about using the phrase "substernal chest pain". It truly is an imprecise term since you believe it means inferior to the sternum and the medical students clearly meant it to be deep to the sternum. However, I have never placed a central line in the retroclavian vein, nor have I ever written an order for a retrocutaneous insulin injection. There are many anatomical structures where the "sub" prefix means "deep to" and not "inferior". I have done my best to only quibble over small details when it actually affects patient care. I would never correct a medical student when I know exactly what they mean by the term substernal.