Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Heard at Meetings: Phrases Convenient but Dubious

2004; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 114; Issue: Supplement Linguagem: Inglês

10.1097/00006534-200410001-00016

1529-4242

Robert M. Goldwyn,

Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies

During a recent symposium, I made a list of phrases that speakers used either to excuse or to explain an imperfect or incomplete result. I would be dishonest if I did not admit to resorting on occasion to one or two of these verbal stratagems myself. “But the patient was happy.” This expression is commonly employed when showing a poor postoperative result. Indeed, it could well be true that the patient was ecstatic about an outcome that anybody else would consider unsatisfactory. Who among us has not had, for example, a happy teenager with a bad rhinoplasty? We even hope that in her enthusiasm she will not boast to her friends about her “wonderful” surgeon. Yet whenever I hear that “the patient was happy” I suspect that the patient was not so happy as the surgeon would have himself or herself and us believe. In some circumstances, it would be better to say: “Both the patient and I would have preferred a better result. She is trying to reconcile herself to this outcome while I am thinking of ways to improve it.” In this tight situation, we commonly hear “Even though I offered the patient the opportunity for revision, she refused.” Again, this may be true, but I wonder. “The patient wanted it.” This expression is invoked to excuse any therapy. If, for example, the speaker is enamored with the expander technique of breast reconstruction, he or she will affirm that the patient insisted on it even though a single-stage simple insertion of an implant would have done the job as well. Since those of us in the audience were not in the surgeon’s office, we can never know what actually transpired during the consultation. My bet is that the surgeon favored and pushed a particular procedure. Why the shame of admitting it and why the need to displace onto the patient the decision about his or her treatment? Indeed, the physician has as much responsibility to recommend a specific therapy as the patient has the right to accept or reject it. It would not be disastrous to the speaker’s image to tell an audience: “At the time this patient consulted me, I was particularly interested in the expander technique. Although we did discuss alternatives, I advised her to try this method and she enthusiastically agreed.” “The patient has moved away and has not returned to the office.” This sentence is a frequent excuse for lack of adequate follow-up and photographs. Although moving is a national pastime, it is usually possible to trace a patient and arrange for that individual to see a colleague who would be willing to examine and photograph as a favor. Why not fulfill your responsibility to an audience by presenting complete data? Another outrageous excuse for poor postoperative photography is to assign the blame to the resident. This is a ploy of quintessential stupidity, since nobody believes it and, even if it were true, the presenter is at fault for shoddy supervision. “These results are preliminary.” This phrase is useful when the speaker wishes to establish priority but gives an incomplete presentation. It is also asking the audience not to be too critical. My reaction is that if, indeed, the results are preliminary, why offer them at this time? Why toot one’s horn prematurely? “Dr. —, who is not here to present our work, could better answer that question.” This response to a query from the audience is usually from a chief of the service who has paid for the research but probably does not under stand it fully since it was done by somebody else, almost always someone younger, a resident or associate, who, at that moment, is working back home while the “professor” is seizing the credit. Why can’t the old bull (or old cow) settle for just being thanked for his or her support? Excuse my barnyard similes, but why do those older have to horse around trying to hog the show? “We are working on that right now.” Again, a response to a question at the end of a talk, usually on basic research. Many times it is true that the new direction of the laboratory work coincides with an idea from a listener. In many instances, however, the presenter never considered this concept, but one can be sure that as soon as he or she returns home, work will begin. It would be refreshing to have a speaker who has enough self-confidence and honesty to thank an intelligent listener for the suggestion not only then but when the paper is next presented or published. Another variant of the “we are working on it now” is to say that “information on that point will appear in our paper” —and, indeed, it will, as soon as the speaker can find a typist. Samuel Johnson, who had advice for almost every human situation, phrased it simply: “Clear your mind of cant.”