In their timely paper, “Classifying infectious disease outbreaks to improve timeliness and efficiency of response,” Posid, Goodman, and Khan (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2014;8:89-94) make a cogent argument for the need to change the taxonomy for the description of an infectious disease. They also raise several issues associated with the current language, and offer a structure for how to promote change. In addition, they comment on the potential complications associated with not having accurate language. Moreover, they illustrate the dilemma associated with poor word choice (indicators), including several examples of terms that may be misleading, and offer arguments on ways to proceed with changing the language.
A very important issue raised by this discussion, however, centers on the use of words. Unfortunately, language for the science of disaster health is a morass of confusing terms—no common language exists. This state leads to confusion, often is misleading, and, as the authors point out, the use of terms that have no standardized, accepted definition can lead to inappropriate actions and further damage. The language we use has consequences. At present, the language of disasters is rife with confusion and misuse. To communicate effectively with each other, we must collectively understand what is being communicated, and to achieve this, we must standardize our language, not only for disaster medicine but for the whole disaster community.
In general, attempts to standardize our language have been unsuccessful. Currently, more than 50 glossaries have been published regarding disaster terms, yet we cannot even agree on the definition of a disaster. Although this difficulty is compounded by the interdisciplinary nature of disasters, we cannot reach consensus on the definitions and taxonomy for disaster public health and medical care. It appears that, at the least, a common lexicon must be established for our work. Attempting to acquire a common language for all of the disaster community currently is not possible. However, the ability to achieve consensus from many sectors has been demonstrated by the Sphere Project.
It appears that 2 roads are available to establish a common set of definitions: organize a consensus process similar to that used by the Sphere Project or convene the editors of the leading scientific disaster medicine journals and produce the lexicon that will guide the correct use of terms in every manuscript accepted for publication. I believe that the second option is the only realistic choice. So, editors, let us get started.
