Much could be said about the reasons for the disastrous outcomes of the SARS outbreak, particularly for Toronto and the rest of Canada. Retrospective analyses may come to dissimilar conclusions, depending on the analysts' points of view. I join those who believe that the stigma cast on Toronto was largely a result of the excessive style of the news media — written, spoken and illustrated.1 It is to my regret (and surprise) that the medical profession, perhaps unwittingly, assisted the media in this dubious achievement. I refer here to the name of the syndrome: severe acute respiratory syndrome. The nomenclature of diseases does not usually include qualifying adjectives. I can think of but one exception, the form of anemia that a century ago was called “pernicious”; now it is known as megaloblastic anemia.
It serves no useful purpose to give a disease a frightening name, and medical science has, until now, wisely refrained from doing so. I hope that the naming of SARS does not herald a new trend toward names such as “terrible acute leukemia” and “debilitating osteoporosis.” In fact, it would be a good idea to rename SARS with a more scientifically acceptable term, free from psychological overtones.
Miklos Nadasdi General Practitioner Toronto, Ont.
Reference
- 1.↵