Journal of Genetic Counseling, Vol. 14, No. 6, December 2005 ( c
2005)
DOI: 10.1007/s10897-005-5886-5
“SLANG”—Sensitive Language and the New Genetics—an
Exploratory Study
J. Hodgson,1,2,5E. Hughes,2,3and C. Lambert2,4
Published Online: 29 December 2005
SLANG—Sensitive Language and the New Genetics—is a concept that arose out of informal
discussions between a number of interested parties, both consumers and professionals, who
were becoming increasingly uneasy with some of the language commonly used in medical
genetics. Some language choices were felt by the authors to be inappropriate for a variety of
reasons. Poor language choice may impede an individual’s understanding of a genetic con-
dition or important medical information and the chosen words themselves may simply be
perceived as discriminatory and even offensive.
SLANG is an important concept to explore partly because literature in this area confirms
that language choices in medical settings can be of great significance to both patients and
families. Studies have shown how language choices impact on professional practice by, as
one example, changing the intended meaning of medical information and affecting individual
perception of risk and choice which, in turn, may affect individual or familial well-being. In
addition language choice has the power to affect how individuals perceive themselves and
are viewed by others. This paper presents the results from our pilot study and discusses the
implications for health professionals with particular reference to medical genetics settings.
KEY WORDS: consumer; language; health professional; medical genetics.
INTRODUCTION
The concept of SLANG—Sensitive Language
and the New Genetics—came from discussions be-
tween genetic health professionals and consumers in
Melbourne, Australia in response to concerns about
1Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Parkville, Melbourne,
Victoria 3052, Australia.
2Department of Paediatrics, Melbourne University, Parkville,
Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia.
3Genetic Support Network of Victoria (GSNV), Parkville, Mel-
bourne, Victoria 3052, Australia.
4Genetic Health Services Victoria (GHSV), Parkville, Melbourne,
Victoria 3052, Australia.
5Correspondence should be directed to Jan Hodgson, Genet-
ics Education, MCRI, Royal Children’s Hospital, Parkville,
Melbourne, Victoria 3052, Australia; e-mail: jan.hodgson@mcri.
edu.au.
some language choices that were felt to be inappro-
priate or confusing.
Clear and effective communication should be
of paramount importance to those working in the
field of medical genetics. Sociolinguists recognise the
power of language choice and suggest that words
have the ability to influence individual and commu-
nity perceptions of “reality” (Holmes, 2001, p. 331).
For health professionals it becomes particularly pru-
dent to make wise word choices, given the position of
power and responsibility in which doctors often find
themselves (Grbich, 1999). It has also been recog-
nised that health professionals are particularly prone
to using “demeaning shorthand or jargon that stereo-
types or dehumanises” (Rothstein, 1991, p. 498).
Language choice should be seen as a key discussion
issue in health care generally and the exploratory
415
1068-0667/05/1200-0415/0 C
2005 National Society of Genetic Counselors, Inc.
416 Hodgson, Hughes, and Lambert
study outlined in this paper highlights the need for
language choice to be a particular priority for those
working in medical genetics.
Language choice has been shown to affect a
number of different areas that are particularly rele-
vant to the genetic counseling process.
Framing of Genetic Risks
Client perceptions of risk may be affected by
a number of ways in which the risks are framed
(Shiloh and Sagi, 1989; Abramsky and Fletcher, 2002;
Sarangi et al., 2003) and this may have an effect on
risk processing.
For example individuals may perceive a risk that
is presented in the form of a percentage (e.g. 10%)
as either higher or lower than the same risk when it
is presented as a proportion (e.g. 1 in 10) depend-
ing upon how that individual reasons numerically
(Kessler and Levine, 1987).
Client Anxiety Levels
Word choices in genetic contexts can play a part
in both reducing and increasing guilt that is some-
times experienced by parents of children with a dis-
ability (Chapple et al., 1995).
selors may use “indirect speech” (e.g. use of “some
people,” “most people”) as a way of trying to main-
tain neutrality and how this may be in conflict
with attempts to explore clients individual needs
(Benkendorf et al., 2001).
Respect for Persons
Effective medical information communication
needs to be both relevant for and inoffensive to
the target group. Culturally sensitive communica-
tion materials have been developed specifically for
African Americans with a family history of cancer
(Baty et al., 2003). Ideally sensitive language should
be an integral part of medical communication but this
is more obvious in certain areas than in others.
1983 was the International Year of the Disabled
and since that time “Person-first language” has
been developed (Titchkosky, 2001). It came from
the recognition that language has the power to
offend and degrade individuals as well as influence
perceptions of disability in society resulting in in-
creased stigma and discrimination. Preferred terms
include using “person with a disability” in place of
“handicap” and “persons who are blind” in place of
“the blind.”
