Disability, disorder, and identity.

Wehmeyer (2013) looked at the words we use in the ICD. The author asked: does calling intellectual disability a 'disorder' hurt the person?

The paper is a think piece, not an experiment. It argues we should drop the label 'disorder' and talk about how the person fits with their world instead.

The author says the word 'disorder' can make people see only the deficit. It can also make adults with ID feel broken.

The fix is to speak in everyday function: what helps the person learn, work, and play.

Thurm et al. (2022) updated the debate. They tell clinicians exactly when to use 'condition,' 'disorder,' 'syndrome,' 'disease,' or 'disability.' The 2022 paper keeps 'disorder' for some cases, while Wehmeyer (2013) wants the word gone. The gap is mostly about setting: Audrey gives tight clinical rules; L worries about stigma.

Ellis (2013), written the same year, looks at court reports. It also says: talk about what the person can do, not just the label. The two papers back each other up.

Tassé et al. (2013) went a step further. That team wrote the AAIDD advice sent to ICD-11. Their draft swaps 'mental retardation' for 'intellectual disability' and adds support levels. In short, J et al. turned L's idea into a policy draft.

When you write an assessment, an IEP, or talk to parents, your words shape identity. Swap 'Johnny has a disorder' for 'Johnny learns best with pictures and extra time.' This tiny edit keeps the team focused on supports, not stigma. Try it in your next report.