[lg policy] Connecticut: Why Is User Of State Services A 'Consumer'?

[Harold Schiffman]

Why Is User Of State Services A 'Consumer'?

    * Robert M. Thorson


In 1936, Aldous Huxley cautioned that "Words are the instruments of
thought; they form the channel along which thought flows … If we wish
to think correctly it is essential that we should use the appropriate
words."

The Connecticut Department of Developmental Services followed this
advice when it issued its "respectful language" policy last year. It
requires its staff to use "people-first" language when referring to
individuals receiving their services. The idea is to avoid equating
the whole person with a particular condition. One of their people is
my adult son Adam, for whom I'm guardian. Using the department's
policy, he's not an autist. Rather, he has autism. He isn't an
epileptic. Rather, he has epilepsy.

Yet, the department seems to ignore its policy by using the label
"consumers" for those it serves. I cringe when I read on official
communications and hear in agency speak that Adam's primary identity
within the agency is someone who uses things up. This label isn't
restrictive enough because it's true for all humans, economically,
ecologically and thermodynamically.

Adam is not a patient. He is not a client. So what is he? A
"whatever?" Surely there must be an accurate, useful and semantically
neutral label other than consumer, especially for those like Adam who
return a surplus of joy.


Frankly, I didn't want to know why the department chose this word. So,
I restricted my research to elsewhere. First, I visited websites of
assisted living facilities, because that situation resembles in many
ways my son's. They would have called him a resident, but this term is
too exclusive for department clients living with their families, for
example children. Next, I visited the website of the U.S. Social
Security Administration, which faced similar language problems when
creating its policies. There, anyone receiving support is called a
"beneficiary," or more informally, a "recipient."

In free-market economics, the word "consumer" bears a positive
connotation because that's where the true power lies. In ecology, the
word bears a neutral connotation because the "cycle of life" requires
both the production and consumption of organic matter. But in context
of a public agency struggling to reach more than 19,000 state
residents in a poor economy, use of the word "consumer" sends the
wrong message to taxpayers, especially since the department controls
the flow of services and funding.

Immediately below the hot link labeled "consumers" on the department's
home page is a hot link labeled "providers." The connotation here is
also positive, even though most of these providers are heavily
regulated, free-market vendors selling direct care services to the
state. A third, albeit unwritten, link for the department's trinity is
the agency itself. Again, the connotation of this word is positive,
because an agent is one who makes good things happen on behalf of, and
empowered by, another entity, in this case the taxpayers.

In the early 1970s, our seven-piece band had a music agent. He didn't
think of us as consumers. Now I have a literary agent. She doesn't
think of her clients as consumers. In fact, she's paid a percentage of
my earnings. In contrast, my adult son's state-empowered agent calls
him a consumer. This inverts and distorts the truth.

Our modern social contracts and timeless situational ethics require
that some public resources be set aside to support the disabled
humanely. First in line for these resources are the caring staff
members of the developmental services department, who spend a chunk
for administration. Next in line are the caring vendor-providers, who
spend most of what's left to provide direct service. Third in line is
my son, who spends the pittance remaining.

When Adam buys something non-essential, like a new hat, he is being a
consumer. When he's just living his life, even with societal support,
he's just being a person like you, me, the department's Commissioner
Peter O'Meara and his boss, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy.

Robert M. Thorson is a professor of geology at the University of
Connecticut's College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and a member of The
Courant's Place Board of Contributors. His column appears every other
Thursday. He can be reached at profthorson at yahoo.com.

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/hc-op-thorson-0224-20110224,0,3876889.column

-- 
**************************************
N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to
its members
and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner
or sponsor of the list as to the veracity of a message's contents.
Members who disagree with a message are encouraged to post a rebuttal,
and to write directly to the original sender of any offensive message.
 A copy of this may be forwarded to this list as well.  (H. Schiffman,
Moderator)

For more information about the lgpolicy-list, go to
https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/
listinfo/lgpolicy-list
*******************************************

_______________________________________________
This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list
lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format: https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list