With Valentine’s Day just behind us, many have had the opportunity to celebrate their love and consider what exactly makes a relationship sustainable, long term. One idiom that is often used to depict the ability of love to soften one’s faults in the eyes of another is the phrase ‘love is blind’, but is blind a word we should really be using so trivially? Debates over linguistics, and what we should, and shouldn’t be allowed to say are nothing new, and even the use of the word blind in academic settings was called into question late last year by Stanford University who opted to swap out their use of the phrase ‘blind study’ for ‘masked study’ as part of their efforts to weed out language that is sexist, ableist or racist. It's easy for such headlines to instantly spark debates about ‘woke culture’ eroding free speech and political correctness gone mad, but in doing so we may miss some of the more nuanced points, and fail to answer the question at the heart of the situation: is there actually any benefit to analyzing and adapting the words we use?

 

Language is a powerful tool that allows us to communicate with, understand and empathize with others and is constantly changing to shape, and adapt to the communicative needs of the culture and people using them. However, with that power also comes the ability to influence and affect change – both positive and negative – within others. Recently we heard from Jasleen Jolly about her study which showed the impact that the manner in which patients are given an eye health diagnosis can cause long-term psychological damage. The study showed that being aware of the words that we say and how we say them is something that everybody – especially those in the medical field should be aware of. But is removing those words from the vernacular really the solution? After all, as mentioned earlier, words, their meanings and their use cases change over time. In the case of the word blind, its etymology suggests that its initial use in Old English was in the description of those who were destitute of vision, over time, additional definitions including “a lack of judgement”, “a screen for a window” and “something designed to conceal one’s real intentions” have all come to rest under this word. Are these definitions not also valid?

 

As much as we like to assume that language was created by all and for all, this isn’t true. In the same way that history is written by the victors, language is developed by those who have a voice that others will listen to. It is likely for this reason that blindness and ignorance were ever even equated in the first place. It’s well documented that throughout history many marginalized groups have not had a voice and as this gradually changes, it makes sense that language will adapt to be applicable for all of its users. Although it may be easy for some to cry that freedom of speech is being eroded with such changes, is this really the case? For those who aren’t blind or visually impaired, what is really lost by saying ‘masked study’ instead of ‘blind study’? The same information can still be imparted, whilst also being considerate of those who may be affected by our words. While many may want to mourn the loss of their ability to say a particular word in a particular context, in doing so, they fail to see what those who are only now being invited into the conversation gain by having language that is reflective of the part they play in society. Stanford spent 18 months listening to and engaging with stakeholder groups before they made the decision to change their vocabulary.

 

They have spoken, now it’s time we listen.

 

What are your thoughts on Stanford University’s decision to change their vocabulary? Please let us know at edit@theophthalmologist.com.

Testing torsion. Researchers assessed 25 normal adults aged between 30 and 38 to investigate the effects of ocular torsion on horizontal motor fusion and stereopsis as well as peripheral, macular and foveal fusion. They found that ocular torsion within the normal range of cyclofusion affects the horizontal motor fusion of convergent and divergent fusion and stereopsis in normal adults. Link

 

Common changes. A retrospective review of baseline indocyanine green angiography in eyes with typical age-related macular degeneration and polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy showed that choroidal vascular remodeling is common in both typical neovascular age-related macular degeneration and polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy, but can be driven by differing stimuli. Link

 

Interaction inquisition. New research in which a volume of serial ultrathin sections of central macaque retinal were analyzed, led the researchers to propose that trogocytosis by macaque retinal microglia allows them to present antigens obtained from normal internal retinal cells, promoting antigen-specific tolerance when activated. Link

 

Plan of reattachment. A systematic review and meta-analysis of 36 studies, involving 3720, eyes suggest that pars plana vitrectomy is a strategy that is effective in achieving retinal reattachment in patients with tractional retinal detachment, with preoperative visual acuity being the only factor associated with postoperative visual acuity. Link