Is “Cerebral Palsy” an Obsolete Name?

​“Cerebral palsy” is a term that is commonly utilized for the purpose of describing a range of disorders that affect the movement of the individual sufferer. These impairments are permanent and typically being to appear in early childhood. Among the primary symptoms of cerebral palsy are the experience of tremors, muscle weakness, stiffness in the muscle, and a lack of coordination. Persons that suffer from cerebral palsy may also experience difficulties with speaking, hearing, swallowing, vision, and sensation. Infants that demonstrate symptoms of cerebral palsy are often much more limited in both their movements and sounds than infants that do not experience this disorder. Many victims of cerebral palsy experience seizures as well as cognitive difficulties.

Cerebral palsy is caused by damage to the part of the brain that governs movement, posture, and balance. While cerebral palsy typically develops during pregnancy, its precise causes are unknown. Risk factors include premature birth, twin births, exposure to mercury during pregnancy, exposure to rubella, problematic child delivery, or the experience of head trauma during early childhood. Because of the fact that cerebral palsy is a term that denotes a range of disorders rather than a singular disorder, Shevell (2018) suggests that the term “cerebral palsy” should be changed to “cerebral palsy spectrum disorder.” Shevell makes a profound case for this proposed change of terminology based on an analogy to the way that “autism” has been changed “autism spectrum disorder.”

​Shevell argues there is a self-evident approach to cerebral palsy, one that is not recognized under the current standard. There is a desire to change the words, which do matter, based on the premise presented by Shevell. Within the medical environment, “we should strive to communicate succinctly and clearly, conveying both continuity and understanding” (Shevell 233). Generalizing cerebral palsy does not accomplish this, as there is more of an umbrella term to what should be a specific disorder. The primary argument being made by Shevell is evident and backed by the appropriate sources to change the way in which cerebral palsy is observed, medically.

​Integration of a relative approach is necessary for a persuasive argument. Shevell speaks of the “community” (p. 233). This works on the level of pathos to create a relative connection with the audience. By indicating that there is a community of those diagnosed with cerebral palsy and those who may be indirectly impacted, Shevell is showing an understanding, empathy, and support for proper diagnosis in terms of the words used, concision, and clarity.

​Changing the medical definition is not a simple task. Reliance on the spectrum of cerebral palsy holds strong coordination with the history of the term, and any connected diagnosis and potential treatment (Shevell). One must note the ideology behind this term and how changing the term, as suggested by Shevell, would then change the nature of medical diagnoses on this disorder. Yet, there is a wider issue that needs to be addressed with respect to the article and the condition. As Shevell recognizes, there is a need to have clarity in the medical environment, in all capacities. This is a valuable argument that has implications beyond cerebral palsy and its diagnoses, but transitioning into the wider medical environment and the terminology associated with a condition, disorder, or disease that has been recognized by the physician.

​Patients are going to be given a heightened level of care if the terminology is changed. As the article finds, the foundation of treatment changes when there is appropriate clarity aligned with a disorder. Earlier, these individuals were described as victims, which can be a flexible and subjective term. The patients become victims when they are misdiagnosed with a condition due to the terminology. Shevell finds this to be a risk when there is inappropriate evidence supporting a condition. The author is integrating a unique approach, using the rhetorical devices ethos, pathos and logos in order to align with the reader and deliver a strong argument. This is persuasive, and ensures the argument has an appropriate level of effectiveness, where the reader understands the capacity for growth in this setting, and appreciates how medical terminology may transition into appropriate diagnosis.

​The foundation of the argument is focused on terminology and verbiage aligned with cerebral palsy. The researcher is able to incorporate appropriate evidence to support this argument, essentially establishing a call to action, which is appropriate for this condition and others throughout the medical environment. The argument is persuasive as all of the elements are available, shaping the context in a way that the reader may understand. Moreover, there are implications and lasting value with this approach. One begins to think about the context of medical diagnoses and the connected words used to describe a condition, whatever it may be. Now, Shevell has been impactful in shaping the thinking of the reader, who may be a patient or prospective patient to the medical environment. This was the goal, and Shevell is strong in the ability to change the idea behind diagnoses within this environment. It is time for a change in how cerebral palsy is recognized, and Shevell is pushing for this change. JGAB

Work Cited

Shevell, Michael. “Cerebral Palsy to Cerebral Palsy Spectrum Disorder: Time for a Name Change?” Neurology, 2018 Dec 19. pii: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000006747. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000006747.