When words really do hurt

In his letter, Bill Andrews (May 2) praises the work the Kummissjoni Nazzjonali Persuni b'Disabilità (KNPD) does but finds us a little "over-zealous" in advocating one form of language usage over another when referring to disabled people.

It's true that extreme forms of political correctness can achieve great heights of absurdity, which is why, where this issue is concerned, KNPD has always tried to adopt a common-sense approach wherever possible. This is reflected in our publications: Our code of practice for the media, Rights Not Charity, being a case in point (available from www.knpd.org).

However, in this instance, I have to say that we agree with Philip Grech (April 18). He is right to point out that we, disabled people, shouldn't be equated with our condition. I include myself among those disabled people who hate being reduced to a medical label, such as "the arthritic", "the deaf", "the blind", "the spina bifida", the autistic, or, a "Down's".

Mr Grech's second point is also very valid. While we may have a particular condition, it does not necessarily mean we are in a constant state of "suffering".

The overuse of the term "suffering from..." perpetuates the misconception that we are weak, tragic figures whose lives are a burden on ourselves and others. In fact, like everyone else, we disabled people learn to adapt to our specific circumstances in life, but we are rarely actually "suffering", except, as Mr Grech further observes, possibly from society's occasional prejudices and consequent acts of thoughtlessness.

Mr Andrews is right to say that most terms, like "Spastics" were not intended to hurt or harm, but common usage often transforms and corrupts the original meaning of words, so that the factual medical term "spastic" soon becomes "Spazz!", the bully's term of abuse hurled at anyone they deem inferior, but used especially to denigrate and ridicule people with severe cerebral palsy.

Like many other groups before us (such as race minorities and women), we disabled people have begun to demand real respect, not the well-meaning, patronising attitude of old. And respect is primarily reflected in language use. So, "what's in a word?"

Well, actually, a great deal more than most people credit. That is why people who earn their livelihood in the media have a duty to be more careful and, when in doubt, to take a minute or two to seek advice from representatives of the social group they're writing about.