Originally Posted by
NOS88
The issue of language continues to be one rooted in history and context. As an example, in the "aging network" of service providers where I live, calling people "folks" would be considered to informal and offensive to some. The history of “folks” being a term to describe less sophisticated people is not all that distant to many. Last year I sat through over six hours (spread over two days) of discussions about calling the people we serve either "consumers" or "participants". I understand the historical reason for using "consumer". Its roots are in the 60s when being a consumer was a good thing, much better than being a "client". Consumers, at the time were seen as those who were making decisions about what they wanted, and a client was a demeaning name in that it inferred a lesser position of power. Last year’s discussion came about because there was concern that people with disabilities were being seen, correctly or incorrectly, as “consuming” a disproportionate share of the “limited” resources available from Medicare and Medicare funding. Part of the problem with saying “the person over 65” is that it is an arbitrary number used to define age based on funding requirements. The fact is that people age at different rates. In the beginning of the manual we discussed the use of all labels employed for the people we serve. It ended with these two sentences: "So, you can see that terminology used today will continue to evolve. From the practitioner’s view point all terms should, however, be used with the intent to show respect."
Which brings us to the possibility of a functional definition.
(I did not really mean that we would use the term "folks" - that was just my generic term for any of a number of potential words such as individual or person. I imagine there are some distinct regional variations in acceptance of different words).
The ADA (and the Rehab Act of 1973, as amended) defines an "individual with a disability" as:
(1) has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; OR (2) has a record of such an impairment; OR (3) is regarded as having such an impairment.
A physical impairment is defined by ADA as "any physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more of the following body systems: neurological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory (including speech organs), cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genitourinary, hemic and lymphatic, skin, and endocrine."
and a "Major Life Activity" as:
"To be a disability covered by the ADA, an impairment must substantially limit one or more major life activities. A major life activity is an activity that an average person can perform with little or not difficulty. Examples are walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, performing manual tasks, caring for oneself, working, sitting, standing, lifting, reading."
Does this relate to a potential definition of "older person" or whatever one might want to call it? As poor examples, I offer certain functional characteristics such as inability to walk a mile, or lack of certain levels of breathing capacity?
What I am suggesting is that there are folks 75 who are functionally 50 and vice versa, yet this is, seemingly, not recognized in the gerontology field (of which I am in no way an expert).
It seems to me that offering programs to groups such as "Silver Sneakers" on an age basis is not really valid. Offerings should be based on functional characteristics.