‘Chronic’ v ‘Persistent’

I’m just going to freewheel on this issue. I have to admit that I am totally baffled by the recent trend to replace the ‘chronic’ reference with the totally inappropriate ‘persistent’ reference. This trend has now seemingly penetrated into the inner circles of the Neuro specialists who are concerned with the pain theory and possible treatments of chronic pain conditions. It concerns me that incorrectly premised thinking will achieve nothing, and may even lead to inappropriate treatments evolving from basic misunderstandings. ‘Persistent’ means one thing....that an issue has continued after a known resolution point has been passed. To assume that meaning onto a ‘chronic’ issue, which means that an issue will continue over time with no known resolution point, is nothing less than an attempt to soften the ‘chronic’ undertones by supplanting them with a meaningless replacement description. So, I have to ask, what might have inspired this desire to impose an inappropriate descriptive reference (persistent) onto an already perfectly described condition (chronic).

Excuse my scepticism here, but perhaps it was a means for operators to not be too concerned with their failures in the treatment of chronic conditions. As such, it might have relevance as an operator’s placebo. Maybe it is considered that ‘persistent’ has less negative connotations in the chronic patient mindset, but that doesn’t excuse an unrequired complete change of meaning. Maybe there are those who don’t understand the continuance of chronic conditions, and they have to assume a resolution point somewhere in the process to validate their interactions. None of these possible reasons for an insistence on ‘persistence’ to replace ‘chronic’ has any relevance whatsoever on the subjective ‘chronic’ experience....which remains ‘chronic’ regardless. So what’s the problem here ? Patients do not have a problem with their condition being referred to as ‘chronic’.....so why the need for changing that to something which simply doesn’t make any sense to the patient. Chronic conditions are called ‘chronic’ because there is no known possible resolution over time. Is there really a need to confuse that issue ? A chronic patient is entitled to receive treatment for their presented condition, rather than treatment for some imaginary condition which has seemingly passed its expected resolution point.

Let’s be clear about this. Any operators assuming that a chronic condition is really a persistent condition, may well be operating off a false premise. That has ethical implications which might mean inappropriate treatments for chronic patients. That is what’s at stake when the reality and meaning of a medical condition have an unsuitable meaning imposed on them for the convenience of operators. And it must be challenged vigorously, before it insidiously becomes the norm and affects future advances in treatments. As a chronic patient myself (cervical spondylosis) I find it meaningless to have my condition referred to as ‘persistent’. I know my condition is chronic, it’s degenerative, and I have no problem perceiving it as such. It would further bother me if I had to perceive it as something which should have resolved, but has somehow ‘persisted’ without explanation.

So, let’s stick with the definitions which make sense, no matter how difficult it is to accept a ‘chronic’ overview. At least patients will understand that their condition is understood when presenting for treatments.