Mis-manage-meant

Charlotte Williamson doubts whether we should continue to ‘manage’ patients.1 At first I thought the offence was the perceived gender specificity, with her preferring the term ‘personage’ but I soon realised it was merely political correctness raising its head again. ‘Personage’ is an archaic term for an important or distinguished person (for we are all distinguished in our own way), so she will no doubt be in favour of such a description for patients. I have, of course, introduced another debated term: ‘patients’. In these equal but patient-centred partnerships, who are we to manage ‘patients’? We should be:

‘Entering, as equals, into due discourse, at our mutual convenience, with mutual respect, for our mutual wellbeing, ensuring that we are left mutually feeling, and being, improved medically, physically, spiritually and socially’.

(Well, it was the woolliest mission statement I could come up with!) Perhaps ‘mutual’ should be banned from the language, certainly when used as nauseatingly.

Let's abandon this ongoing debate about words or terms that may be outdated or just might appear condescending, imply passivity, or suggest superiority in knowledge or experience. I, for one, am going to continue to ‘manage’ and treat my patients. But with increasing bureaucracy, performance review, and now semantics I might not be able to manage at all.

• © British Journal of General Practice, 2005.