TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:physicians and engineers From:Karen Riley <riley -at- CGI -dot- COM> Date:Tue, 23 Aug 1994 09:38:12 EDT
I agree with Mike Priestly that physicians' lingo is more
shorthand than exclusionary. The technical mindset, if you
will (Karla's making information accessible, decoding, the
unintimidable quest for understanding ;-)), puts us at a
distinct advantage when dealing with physicians.
For instance, I'd spent three days in the local med school
library and had two pages of questions before I talked to
a pediatric cardiologist about including my daughter in a
clinical trial (an alternative to full-blown open heart
surgery). For the first 15 minutes, the conversation went
like this:
Me: I'd read that ...
Physician: (skeptical) Where did you read that?
Me: I don't have the citation with me, but I saw this in several
articles, between 1983 and 1985 I think, probably in JAMA and
Cardiology.
Physician: Ohhh...
After he was convinced I wasn't blowing smoke, he stopped
asking where I'd read things.
Most of my dealings with physicians have been like this. When
pressed, none have ever ignored my questions. And several that
I've had the good fortune to deal with actually seemed to enjoy
discarding the shorthand and "teaching" an interested, prepared
patient.
In my experience, engineers lingo is shorthand, too, and as
long as I've done my homework and come well prepared they
are receptive.
