Globe editorial makes a great case for changing the name of DMR

The word is a throwback and a setback. It's insulting, demeaning, and hurtful, and it is all over the place. Legislation to change the name of the Department of Mental Retardation has been filed, and Commissioner Gerald Morrissey supports it.

Since this is an editorial, it understandibly doesn't have much background about the issue, so I thought I'd fill in what I can. "Mental retardation" is still currently the diagnosis applied to people who have an I.Q. below approximately 70 and a significant functional impairment in at least two life areas. A person who meets this diagnosis is "a person with mental retardation." As with any disability, it is generally frowned upon to change the diagnosis into an adjective "is retarded" or into a noun (I suppose this would be "retard"), as the person encompasses much more than his or her disability.

In the case of children, particularly those with multiple disabilities and/or complicating life issues, it is more common to say that someone has developmental disabilities or developmental delays. With a lot of children, there are too many variables, and we don't know whether they'll catch up eventually, or whether they might function a lot more typically once they learn to use a communication device. Most clinicians don't apply the term until someone is old enough and has had enough education that it seems appropriate to make the determination that the person's cognitive and functional abilities are not ever likely to be typical.

One place I've worked is opposed to any diagnosis of mental retardation or developmental delay, but I think this is erroneous until a better diagnosis comes along, because a person's cognitive abilities need to be taken into account in order to provide appropriate services. If someone is evaluated at this program, he or she might have a diagnosis of "cerebral palsy" without any additional diagnosis, which most people would assume means he or she has normal or above-normal intelligence.

A lot of states call their similar department something involving "developmental services," and this is the term I've been heard mentioned in this state. I don't know what specific terms are actually being considered here.

Another point that wasn't made in the editorial is that the Department of Mental Retardation in Massachusetts provides services to some people who do not have mental retardation. Until the age of 22, many disabilities are considered "developmental" because they get in the way of normal development, but do not involve mental retardation. I've worked with clients who were eligible for DMR services until the age of 22 with diagnoses such as multiple physical/medical disabilities, Down Syndrome with intelligence in the normal range, and autism spectrum disorders with intelligence in the normal range. Several of these individuals have expressed irritation about the name of the department that assists them. Surprisingly, despite being adolescents with very adolescent opinions of things, none of them seemed to mind being connected with the agency itself; these comments have all been specifically about the name of the place. One individual was more concerned about "retard" being in the name of the agency than about the accuracy of the agency's name as relates to this individual's disability.