Changing the name of a medical condition may seem pointless, but it matters a lot

[Sean]

So to clarify, what you are saying is that the perceptual aspect of the name and definition don't matter.

I don't think that is a fair interpretation of my words.

The problem I have is that I'm afraid Exertion will be replaced with Exercise by the mainstream and doctors.

Well let's make sure it doesn't. If your doctor or local newspaper does that, then point firmly at the IOM report. Shove that science based authority in their face. If they dispute it, tell them to take it up with the IOM authors.

 

[jimells]

The problem I have is that I'm afraid Exertion will be replaced with Exercise by the mainstream and doctors.

Just like Dr Oz's doctor guest kept replacing "Disease" with "Disorder"...

 

[jimells]

The problem I have is that I'm afraid Exertion will be replaced with Exercise by the mainstream and doctors.

Just like Dr Oz's doctor guest kept replacing "Disease" with "Disorder"...

 

[Dolphin]

The problem I have is that I'm afraid Exertion will be replaced with Exercise by the mainstream and doctors.

Doubt it would happen much with the medical literature. These are checked and double-checked.

 

[jimells]

I recall that AIDS had a number of names before 'AIDS' was adopted. I also recall how horribly patients were treated by society as a whole. Is there any evidence that a name change improved attitudes? My suspicion is that what improved attitudes was the research that clearly showed it could not be transmitted by casual contact, a message that took many years to get across.

Some early names for AIDS: (from wikipedia)
Kaposi's Sarcoma and Opportunistic Infections
"the 4H disease" (the syndrome seemed to affect Haitians, homosexuals, hemophiliacs, and heroin users)
"GRID", which stood for gay-related immune deficiency

 

[Mij]

@jimells interesting. I never knew this about the AIDS name.