USA: Journalists should drop use of the word ‘elderly’

. WILMINGTON, Delaware / The News Journal / Letters / March 16, 2009 Since I have come closer and closer to my 70th birthday, I find myself being more disturbed by The News Journal’s seemingly incessant requirement to slap the adjective “elderly” on the description of people who are about my age when they are mentioned in an article. The term has a negative connotation to most, regardless of how the dictionary defines it. I know of no person, including my mother-in-law and a few other relatives in their 80s and friends of my age and older who think being described as elderly as desirable. The vision many in the general population have when that term is used is of an old, fragile and to a degree, helpless person who has a somewhat diminished capacity not only physically but mentally. That doesn’t describe any of the people I know of my age. I don’t know if you think that people my age need sympathy if they are victims of a burglary or such. I don’t know if you feel that using the term “elderly 70-year-old” (as you did a few days ago) explains why a person had an automobile accident and so on. There is no problem with including the person’s age in the description of a story. I just object to your use of the word “elderly.” I have yet to see any story that says a “middle-aged 45-year-old” or an “older 55-year-old” or a “young 22-year-old” was involved. When you start doing that, I’ll stop complaining. When describing a government program or such for older people, the term “older adults” is a much more desirable and the vision it promotes in not one of dependency and frailty. Paul C. Venti, Hockessin Newcastle County, Delaware Source: DelawareOnLine