Download PDFPDF

Against diagnosis
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Language Matters
    • Martin Whyte, Consultant Physician & Clinical Senior Lecturer University of Surrey
    • Other Contributors:
      • Debbie Cooke, Psychologist and Reader in Health Psychology

    The article by Launer [1] raises the issue as to whether diagnostic labels are to be avoided as they can be stigmatising and judgemental. Within the article, the term ‘patient’ was used to convey the individual in receipt of the diagnosis. In recent years it has been suggested that ‘patient’ itself be avoided - as it can imply passivity in the face of the medical profession [2]. The word derives from the latin patiens, which means suffering; but also acquiescing, allowing and submitting. This latter connotation implies that a patient ‘receives’ the diagnosis - rather than being empowered to work with the doctor towards a meaningful interpretation of their symptoms and/or resolution of them. Use of the term ‘patient’ by healthcare workers may then lead to the medicalisation of thought towards the individual (semantic determinism). Conversely, surveys have suggested that people prefer to be called a patient [3]. This may reflect the lack of adequate alternative descriptors. To be a ‘patient’ may also be advantageous as it will then clarify to the health care professional and the legal system, the unique obligation they have to that individual. Perhaps, as with ‘diagnosis’, we should seek permission from the individuals themselves whether to refer to them as patients?

    1. Launer J. Postgrad Med J. 2021 Jan;97(1143):67-68. doi: 10.1136/postgradmedj-2020-139298.
    2. Cooper A., Kanumilli N., Hill J., Holt R.I.G et al. Diabetic Medicine. Language matters. Addressin...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.