|
|
Post by Pete on Jun 8, 2008 22:42:22 GMT
BBC headline: "Man seriously ill after shooting". ( news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/7442512.stm)Surely he is injured, or some other word? But not ill, because that implies disease of some sort. Of course, he might have picked up some form of illness as a direct or indirect result of being shot. But that is not what the story says. |
|
|
|
Post by Bertie on Jun 9, 2008 4:53:48 GMT
Hospital bulletins issued on the state of a patient use this terminology to describe the patient's health state, howsoever that was caused.
I can't remember offhand what the other grades are, except that one of them is "poorly".
|
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jun 9, 2008 5:22:03 GMT
In Oz, the standard expressions seem to be:
critical = borderline alive/dead
improving = likely to heal and live
stable = going nowhere fast but usually a positive comment (though technically, I suppose, dead is stable, too).
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Jun 9, 2008 5:38:59 GMT
This may give a clue. (AHA = American Hospital Association.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jun 9, 2008 7:10:45 GMT
In Oz, the standard expressions seem to be: critical = borderline alive/dead improving = likely to heal and live stable = going nowhere fast but usually a positive comment (though technically, I suppose, dead is stable, too). I am not sure death is properly described as stable, as cadavers only decompose, whereas live people are usually in equilibrium, with both anabolism and catabolism in balance.  |
|
|
|
Post by Dave M on Jun 9, 2008 8:07:31 GMT
Yours seems a personal distinction, Pete: surely someone's ill whenever they're not well (think of faring well and faring ill). I know that if I'd just been shot, I'd not be well!
Actually, of course, the man mentioned may well not have been shot: it seems that he did the shooting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jun 9, 2008 8:15:06 GMT
Yours seems a personal distinction, Pete: surely someone's ill whenever they're not well (think of faring well and faring ill). I know that if I'd just been shot, I'd not be well! I take your point but is "ill" the necessary opposite of "well"? Actually, of course, the man mentioned may well not have been shot: it seems that he did the shooting. I am not sure I follow your final point. That article says, "A man is seriously ill in hospital after he was shot in Manchester. Police were alerted when the 26-year-old was taken to Trafford General Hospital suffering bullet wounds to his chest early on Sunday." I think that makes him the shootee, not the shooter (or shootist). |
|
|
|
Post by Dave M on Jun 9, 2008 8:18:25 GMT
I was responding to what you quoted as the headline, Pete: "Man seriously ill after shooting". Powder burns, perhaps?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jun 9, 2008 8:20:25 GMT
I was responding to what you quoted as the headline, Pete: "Man seriously ill after shooting". Powder burns, perhaps? Gotcha!  But on my original point, if he had powder burns would he be ill or injured? I think injured. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave M on Jun 9, 2008 8:23:20 GMT
> is "ill" the necessary opposite of "well"? <
No - could be "badly" (or "piped water-supply" ;D )
I like to look at the meaning of what we're saying when we say someone is "ill" - it just means "not well".
I don't see here the stronger distinction which I would agree has arisen with "disease". If someone has a broken leg, then they're at considerable dis-ease ... but we wouldn't say they have a disease.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Jun 9, 2008 11:18:17 GMT
> But not ill, because that implies disease of some sort. <
I tend to make a distinction between, ill, unwell, diseased, sick, and the like. But it seems that many people, journos especially, use them as some pick-and-mix to indicate anything that is not healthy and unharmed!
We have a "Staff Sickness Form" that would equally be used to record a broken leg. (And I had to use it for chicken-pox, but didn't feel sick.)
Tone
|
|
|
|
Post by Alan Palmer on Jun 9, 2008 13:24:37 GMT
Same here. I see nothing wrong with with the usage. To those of us who are not medical experts there is an almost indivisibly fine line between trauma-induced and infection-induced illness; I don't think that making such a distinction serves any useful purpose.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 9, 2008 13:46:50 GMT
A distinction without a difference?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jun 9, 2008 14:21:57 GMT
More to the point, I would argue that there is a difference and that the line between trauma-induced and infection-induced illness is not "almost indivisibly fine" to anyone. I assume what Alan meant was that there is no practical difference in meaning to people who are not medically trained and not being pedantic. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave M on Jun 9, 2008 14:32:29 GMT
No, I think Alan meant that it might be bleedin' obvious whether someone's leg broke through infection or trauma - but the person is still too sick/ill/unwell/unfit/diseased/depressed/broken/unserviceable to work, so there's no need to make fine medical dictinctions. We need a word that works in all cases when, through lack of health, a person can't work and has to take  ? leave. "Sick leave" works for me, whereas "Leave taken because of a likely-to-be-temporary lack of physical or mental fitness" does not ;D |
|
But on my original point, if he had powder burns would he be ill or injured? I think injured.
? leave. "Sick leave" works for me, whereas "Leave taken because of a likely-to-be-temporary lack of physical or mental fitness" does not ;D