Response to: The Person and the Burn

To the Editor, We thank the author for raising a thoughtful question regarding person-first language in burn care. We agree that terminology matters, particularly in a specialty where the consequences of injury may extend long beyond hospitalization. We also appreciate the author’s recognition that “burn patient” is established terminology generally used without disrespectful intent. Person-first language has the important purpose of emphasizing the individual rather than defining them by diagnosis or injury. Several professional organizations have consequently incorporated such principles into their language guidance. The Annals of the American Thoracic Society, for example, instructs authors to use “patient/person with lung cancer” rather than “lung cancer patient,” and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network similarly recommends person-first language. Professional guidance can meaningfully change medical language.1,2 After the American Geriatrics Society adopted terminology recommendations favoring “older adults” and “older people” over potentially stigmatizing labels such as “the elderly,” subsequent publications demonstrated increased use of the recommended terminology.3 However, whether person-first terminology is inherently more patient-centered is less certain, as well-intentioned language recommendations do not always correspond with how individuals prefer to describe themselves.