It is important to begin our discussion of dementia to acknowledge the complexity of this condition. First, it is important to understand that dementia is a complex medical diagnosis. That being the case, that it is a medical diagnosis and very complex should lead us to be very cautious in using the term.
A Medical Diagnosis
Medical terms are best reserved to be used by those competent in medicine. The complexity of this diagnosis means that non-medical people are best to avoid the use of the term unless the diagnosis has been expertly defined. It is not helpful for lay persons to use the term since there are many types of dementia. Additionally, dementia is a progressive disease ranging from mild to severe. Naming the person with only mild forms as having dementia may be very misleading and often leads to misinterpreting how to relate to the individual. Progression of the disease varies greatly. There is no cure, but some medical intervention will slow the progression. The most common form is Alzheimer’s disease. Although it is more frequently evident in older people age alone is not a sufficient cause. Research identifies a great number of potentially contributing factors of great complexity.
The medical diagnosis by the nature of diagnostic criteria is essentially negative. Some have created the term “defectology” to indicate this reality. The definition is expressed in terms of defective, impaired, limited, or deficient functioning of memory, cognitive ability, motor functioning, social limitations, or organizing ability. The variability in both the occurrence and progression of these conditions is great.
There are good reasons why laypeople should not use this term to describe other people. If one thinks of these conditions on a continuum, it may help to understand why the term should not be used. First, a layperson is not qualified to define where on the continuum the person is located in the progression. Secondly, this being the case, the use of the term may be insulting, pejorative, misleading, and ominous to those who hear that naming of the individual. Thirdly, it is not appropriate to identify a person in terms of conditions of medical nature over which they have no control may be socially misleading.
The Significance in Naming
There is great significance in our use of words in naming things or people. When we name our children there is usually a significance in our choice of names. This goes back to the beginning. In the Old Testament names were carefully chosen and important for a variety of reasons. The painful loss for Eve of her child Abel was relieved in the birth of her third child. She called him Seth which meant, “God has granted me another child.” Lamech name Noah with hope in God, “He will comfort us.” God changed Jacob’s name to Israel. When God gave Moses the task to deliver Israel from Egypt, Moses wanted to know the name of God by which he could assure the Israel of God’s power to deliver them. To identify Him as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob provided historical connection. There are many other examples. In the New Testament, God named both John and Jesus.
The naming of a person with the descriptor of their condition, whether medical or psychological, may have considerable influence on their behavior. It will also influence the way others will relate to them. Thus, not only how they feel about themselves, but how others will view them should be guarded. It feels good to be called by your name not by the limitations you may have. It may be offensive to be identified simply in terms of a condition over which you have no control.
The literature referring to dementia illustrates the point. Some speak of dementia as the “dissolving of self” and many say “it would be better to be dead” or some express the judgment that divorce of a person with dementia is an acceptable option. Since this medical diagnosis is by nature an expression of deficiency, I would conclude it is better not to use it in social contexts. It foundationally focuses an inappropriate weight being put upon functionality, usefulness, and social acumen as the measure of a person or of their value. This assumption is not acceptable from the perspective of Christianity or theology.
In subsequent posts, I will discuss dementia from a Christian perspective.
