Understanding Medical Terminology

[bunnie]

I certainly was not attempting to insult, nor to provoke anything

Never the less Anthro,  the reference to myself was all too obvious. This thread is no longer what I had intended it to be, (which was solely to list the explanations of the terminology, which could be used as a reference on this forum, such as the autoimmune articles thread is.) I am sure it is perfectly obvious to everyone that we would prefer it if the practioners in medicine would speak in modern terms, but they do not, and I personally do not think it will ever happen. This thread, instead of being a list explaining medical terminology, has now sidetracked into a discussion on the rights and wrongs of medical terminology, and now Langerhan cells. No personal perspective or additional thought was required or needed for this thread, it was a list for information only, to use as a reference, and anyone could add to it with more terminologies, or definitions, in like manner, such as blue-sky kindly did.

I have seen the changes occurring for the past forty years.

Medical Terminology always has been explained to the patient in "layman's terms". No medical practioner would change this form of terminology in the medical field, when consulting with colleagues, writing articles, addressing seminars, corresponding on referals, or lecturing. I doubt therefore if you have seen changes regarding this over the last 40 years. We are I believe of a similar age? I have worked in the medical proffession and my friends and family still do, they haven't noticed any change in terminology over the past 40 years.

Quite frankly, as far as i am concerned I intend not to say more on this "debate".  I was dealing with the here and now, it was not open for debate or argument but simply for reference as I explained earlier, I therefore ask you to respect that. If you insist on having a debate about the rights and wrongs of using medical terminology, then please start your own thread, as I suggested in a previous post.

My (bunnie's note).....In the skin, Langerhan cells are immature dendritic cells.

And when the name Islets of Langerhans was originally coined, it only applied to the insulin producing cells of the pancreas.

That is not so regarding naming cells Langerhan cells. The Islets of Langerhan alone refer to the pancreas. The other named Langerhans cells of the skin were discovered first, in 1868, in fact a year before the Islets of Langerhans in the pancreas, which he discovered in 1869!

If there is some good reason that the dendritic immunity modulating cells should also bear the name Langerhans, I would be interested to hear it.  From my perspective, only additional ambiguity and a potential for confusion has been achieved.

here is your answer  to both quotes above... It is in fact the other way round. Langerhan discovered the cells in the skin first, (the immature dendritic cell, Antigen presenting cell) , these are not "islet cells" (which secrete a hormone-insulin in the pancreas,) these were discovered a year later!
 

Langerhans cells - Skin cells concerned with the immune response and which sometimes contain Langerhans granules. In 1868, Langerhans used the technique taught to him by Julius Friedrich Cohnheim to stain a sample of human skin with gold chloride and identified the cells which now bear his name. From their appearance, Langerhans believed they were nerve cells. However they are a form of dendritic cells.
Islets of Langerhans - Pancreatic cells which produce insulin. Langerhans discovered these cells during his studies for his doctorate at the Berlin Pathological Institute in 1869.     

see also...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islets_of_Langerhans


Definitions of LANGERHANS CELLS on the Web:

Dendritic cells in the skin that pick up an antigen and transport it to the lymph nodes. See also Antigen; Dendritic Cells; Lymph Nodes.
www.aidsinfobbs.org/letters/l.html

Langerhans cells are dendritic cells that present antigens to the immune system. They are found in the prickle cell layer of the epidermis. Epidermis
dermnetnz.org/glossary.html

Dendritic, antigen-presenting cells that contains characteristic racket-shaped granules, known as birbeck granules, and which expressing the CD1a antigen. Principally found in the stratified squamous epithelium.
www.nature.com/nrmicro/journal/v1/n1/glossary/nrmicro729_glossary.html

Epidermal dendritic cell that functions as an antigen-presenting cell (APC) during an immune response.
www.nutrabio.com/Definitions/definitions_l.htm

http://dermnetnz.org/dermal-infiltrative/langerhans.html

Langerhans cells are immune cells that are normally found within the epidermis where they act as antigen-presenting cells in an early warning system fighting foreign material such as bacteria. They may migrate to the local lymph glands but usually return to the skin.

http://www.mattek.com/pages/products/dendritic_cells

Dendritic cells (DC) play a key role in the immunological reactions throughout the body. Dendritic cells (DC) and their immature counterparts, Langerhans cells (LC), are highly specialized antigen-presenting cells (APC) located in the skin, mucosa, and lymphoid tissues. DC and LC play a key role in the induction phase of contact allergenicity, and it is likely that these cells can be used to develop in vitro assays for contact sensitization and other immunological reactions of the body.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islets_of_Langerhans

It is these cells which are part of the malfunction in autoimmune disease, they are in over production and fail to regulate the inflammation in the abnormal (autoimmune response).

There are posts on the liga thread concerning this too.
Bunnie

[CalamityJane]

Jumping in here w/a comment that stuck out for me --

And my perspective is still that the medical profession uses the fancy terminology to mystify the patient and point up the expertise of the practitioner, rather than to impart real and useful information to the patient.

I don't know about UK and USA, but I vehmently disagree w/that statement from the British Columbia point of view. That hasn't happened to me in years.

Jane

[anthropositor]

Certainly glad to hear it Calamity.  You may well be right on those dates Bunny. 

[bunnie]

I don't know about UK and USA, but I vehmently disagree w/that statement from the British Columbia point of view

So do I Jane, it serves no purpose to mystify the patient, on either part, certainly not here in the UK, and indeed on a more serious level, anything transpiring  from such practise could result in any doctor (or nurse) being struck off the register. I also think that should it be remotely possible that any doctor could think like that, that it could be interperated as being against the Hypocratic Oath.

You may well be right on those dates Bunny.

  Yes, I know that I am!

[anthropositor]

Notice that my previous post was uncharacteristically brief?  I certainly had more to say.  I didn't.  My last comment was not sarcasm.  I granted the probable accuracy of what you said.  That is giving you the point without further discussion. 

My particular original reference was to Islets of Langerhans; pancreatic cells which I became interested in because there is diabetes in my family history, and because I once got a seriously wrong reading at a Health Fair which caused me to go out and buy an $80 meter and test strips.  I had no compelling interest in the other cells Langerhans investigated, and still don't. 

How had the error occurred?  The people at the Health Fair had apparently opened a new bottle of test strips without recalibrating the meter and tested me with with a major error of 150 for a fasting blood sugar reading. 

The readings that I got (after the proper callibration of my own meter and strips) under the same fasting conditions, repeatedly came out between 90 and 95. 

I didn't complain.  I didn't sue anybody.  I'm not mad at the LVN or RN who forgot to callibrate the strips.  As medical mistakes go, this is a small one, and it did only transient harm to my wallet and gave me a scare.   

There is a great gulf of perspective between us in this instance.  I have less and less trust of the medical profession as time goes on.  You have more and more, it seems.  The reasons for my position have been stated to my satisfaction.  They are my particular perspectives based only on my own personal experiences.  My experiences may not be representative at all, but I have over the years, talked to quite a few nurses who were pretty bitter about some of the doctors they worked with, for reasons which seem quite similar to my own.

Your perspective would appear to be at the opposite end of the spectrum from mine.  There are many reasons to applaud doctors and the medical profession and all the great developments that have occurred in recent decades.  Plenty of people do that.  And it IS comforting to put them on a pedestal.  I WANT to find one with whom I can have this comfortable feeling.  And I'm glad for you that you have that sort of faith in yours. 

Perhaps the very next doctor I go see will be just such an admirable person.  I really do hope so.  Perhaps I have just had an unusual spell of bad luck in the ones I have seen in the first two thirds of my life. 

I did have a dentist once who was the epitome of what one could want in a dentist.  I believe I spoke of him by name in glowing terms. 

I have also spoken at considerable length of Dr. Sandik Ruit and his notable achievements.  I even suggested that perhaps he should be considered for a Nobel Prize.  That is hardly doctor bashing.  I have since learned some other interesting things that could muddy the water a bit.  I think perhaps I won't go into that, particularly not here or now.

When I went to the dentist last, I went with every intention of getting the tooth fixed in one way or the other.  The dentist did not line up my options as I asked.  He told me I would be spending $2200+ in two payments, to fix the one emergency problem, and without reference to any other of the things going on in my mouth.  I myself, not a professional, can think of at least three other options, two of which would have been a lot cheaper, and one of which might have cost me another grand or so.  I think of this dentist as a crook.  I have not identified him by name or location.

I went to the ophthalmologist absolutely prepared to put myself in her able hands and have my cataract taken care of surgically.  My perspective changed somewhat DURING the events of that first office visit.  Look at those threads again and see if I was fair with both the dentist and the surgeon.  I don't believe she is a crook.  I believe she is convinced that her fees are perfectly appropriate entitlements for someone of her education and skills.  She would have gotten the job if only there hadn't been those disturbing glitches in the initial visit and the even more disturbing failure to respond to my detailed questions until I cancelled the surgery.  I don't feel good about her services.  She has not been identified by name or location.

As a final comment, I have ever exerted any sort of control over any thread, even if I started the thread and people occasionally cross threaded on it, or said something on it which diverged from my original intended theme.

To my mind, I was talking about medical terminology and the seeming extra barriers that are institutionally put in place that discourage ready understanding.  I doubt that any doctor actually thinks about the barrier at all. 

Now I am content to leave the subject entirely in your able hands, without further input.  And I would encourage anyone who wants to learn more about the details of medical language, to pay attention to your succinct and worthwhile exposition of the subject. 

[CalamityJane]

I take your point Anthro. The lesson learned here (for me) is to do my research thoroughly, trust my gut instincts, get another opinion (if felt necessary), and get to know my GP well in a relationship of trust. Change GP's if you are not satisfied.

Jane.

[anthropositor]

That sounds like an excellent game plan to me Jane.

[bunnie]

Adding more info...
Chronic: This important term in medicine comes from the Greek chronos, time and means lasting a long time.

Condition: The term "condition" has a number of biomedical meanings including the following:
1)An unhealthy state, such as in "this is a progressive condition."
2)A state of fitness, such as "getting into condition."
3)Something that is essential to the occurrence of something else; essentially a "precondition."
4)As a verb: to cause a change in something so that a response that was previously associated with a certain stimulus becomes associated with another stimulus; to condition a person, as in behavioral conditioning.
Contrast: Short for "contrast media." Contrast media are X-ray dyes used to provide contrast, for example, between blood vessels and other tissue.

[bunnie]

The word IDIOPATHIC
Idioipathic cases of autoimmunity usually occur spontaneously and for no known reason.
They occur of and by SELF
Latin                                                              Greek
idiopathia              =(primary disease) =        idiopatheia
idio=(one's own)                                                   idios = (personal)
                                                +
patheia=(feeling)                                                  pathic= (suffering)

[bunnie]

Onychogriposis
Onik-o-grip-osis  Greek-Onyx =Nail , griposis =curvature. It is also sometimes spelt Onychogryphosis= Onik-o-grif-fosis .
Mycocryptosis My-co-crypt-osis =
myc=fungus; crypt=hidden; osis= abnormal condition (osis means "increased" when used with blood cell word roots)
The word part "Phage" means “a thing that devours,”  ( like Phagocyte or Macrophage)

[Blue Bird]

 I want to commend Bunnie for her intelligence and her thoughtfulness in posting this medical terminology thread for all of those who need to or want to understand the complicated science of it.
 
 I am thrilled to have learned a lot of this in college. I find it highly useful. Here is why:
 
 I have noticed that when I am doing internet research on certain
diseases or on certain organisms, I will inadvertently find myself on a detailed medical site in a different language.
 
 Often I find a particular microscopic depiction of certain organisms on
sites that are in German, Chinese, Russian, Spanish or French.
Thankfully, I have no problem finding the slide I am interested in viewing because the organism has the Latin or Greek name on it. I am very grateful that the medical community world wide utilizes the same medical terminology derived from the Latinor Greek language. It certainly helps a curious researcher, like me, to identify the correct organisms in any language presented, because the Greek or Latin etimology provides universal recognition across the language barriers.
 
 In it's infinite wisdom, the world of medicine and medical technology
uses Latin and Greek as a base languages. It certainly helps medical researchers around the globe communicate precisely and concisely.

[bunnie]

http://www.iatrogenic.org/define.html

Iatros means physician in Greek, and -genic, meaning induced by, is derived from the International Scientific Vocabulary. Combined, of course, they become iatrogenic, meaning physician-induced. Iatrogenic disease is obviously, then, disease which is caused by a physician.

Or perhaps it is not so obvious. The growing complexity of modern life (and medicine) has promoted the elasticity of language. In common usage, then, iatrogenic disease is now applied to any adverse effect associated with any medical practitioner or treatment. The practitioner need not be a physician, he might be a nurse or a radiology technician, or any one of the scores of differentiated healthcare workers encountered in hospitals, clinics, nursing homes, or offices, or for that matter in the ambulance on the way to one of those places. For those who advance the language to the frontier, iatrogenic disease can be caused by practitioners whose association with medicine is negligible or antithetical, such as homeopaths, chiropractors, and psychologists (especially now that they are lobbying for the authority to write drug prescriptions). Or perhaps even Grandma, if she is the one handing out the pills.

Treatment is a term stretched beyond reason. It might refer to something as tangible as surgery or as subtle as a conversation, if the person conducting the conversation is considered a health specialist. (And who isn't?) It might be a potent drug or a placebo. It might be effective or worthless, real or imaginary. While iatrogenic has retained at least a modicum of comprehensibility, treatment has been utterly debased both in word and deed. Therapy is in pretty much the same rundown shape since it was linked to the prefix psycho-.

Because of the intrusion of the Therapeutic State into every cranny of modern life, we have now made iatrogenic illness refer to any adverse reaction caused by anyone thought or claiming to be a health specialist, using any treatment (or lack thereof if the thereof lacking causes the illness) in any setting. With the heavy burden we have loaded onto the word, it is essential for any use of iatrogenic to include clear directions as what the user intends. That way we can distinguish between a person who is dying from an infection obtained from a physician's contaminated hands and a person who sues his doctor for not informing him that skydiving is a dangerous hobby.

Now that we have entered the time of physicians intentionally killing their patients and calling it "physician assisted suicide," iatrogenic takes on a whole new meaning.