Publications Archive

What 's in a name?

Summary: How should we describe people with sight problems? Is it an issue?

---

Question: Adam Bloggs has tunnel vision in one eye and no sight in the other. He can see straight ahead and can read with a CCTV or large print.

Do you think he is:
Blind
Partially Sighted
Visually Handicapped
Visually Challenged
Vocationally blind
Travelling blind
Economically blind
Functionally blind
Adventitiously blind
Visually Impaired
Legally Blind
Visually disabled
Medically blind
Visually Deficit

With dozens more of such terminology hovering between the politically correct to strictly medical definitions, communication related to the visually impaired is confusing and often misleading. (see New Beacon Jan 1993) There may be statutory definitions of blindness and partial sight, but the expression of visual acuity rarely give a true picture of a person’s functional acuity – the eyesight the person actually makes use of.

According to the World Health Organisation, Blindness and Low Vision are defined as in the International Classification of Diseases 10th edition (ICD10):

Blindness defined as visual acuity of less than 3/60 or corresponding visual field loss in the better eye with best possible correction

Low Vision corresponds to visual acuity of less than 6/18, but equal or better than 3/60 in the better eye with best possible correction

Interestingly, for statutory purposes, the definition of blindness is occupational rather than medical. According to Section 64 of the National Assistance Act 1948, “Blindness” is defined as being “so blind as to be unable to perform any work for which eyesight is essential”. The certificate of blindness qualifies this as being a disability referring “to any work and not to his own occupation”.

On the other hand, according to the Ministry Of Health Circular 4/55, “Partially Sighted” covers those whose condition is not so serious as to warrant registration as blind, but who are either “substantially and permanently handicapped by congenitally defective vision or suffer from defective vision of a substantial and permanently handicapping character”.

In the context of employers, “blindness” or “partial blindness” is considered as the need for special aids to carry out a “normal life”.

The term “Visually Challenged” has gained worldwide popularity with its clear intention to express a neutral attitude towards visual disability. In contrast, the terms “Visually Impaired”, “Visually Disabled” and “Visually Handicapped” have been defined as having clear meanings: Impairment concerns the functional loss like sight or disability, and handicap the social consequence of the functional loss.

Another attempt to clear the mist is the term “Legally Blind”. According to the Australian Royal Victorian Institute for the Blind, “People are to be considered legally blind when they are unable to see, with best corrected vision, at 6 metres a letter designed to be seen at 60 metres. Alternatively, they may have a substantial loss in their field of vision or a combination of both factors”.

Over the years, employers have given varying descriptions of terms associated with visual handicap, and it is possible that the interpretation of terminology has significantly coloured employer attitudes to the perception of ability of the visually impaired. While most would consider a ‘blind’ person as having no sight at all, in reality, those registered blind can have residual vision and carry out normal activities with the help of visual aids.

The fact is, being registered blind can only signify a disability and do no more. In order to accurately assess the working capacity of a disabled person, there is much more one needs to be aware of and understand.

Only 3 per cent of people registered blind are totally blind, and 97 per cent have some residual vision.

Terms associated with visual impairment do not take into account the person's age at the onset of disablement. However, a person who is congenitally blind (since birth) will have had a different education, training and even socialisation than a person who lost his sight during his working life.

Of course, in the end, it is up to the individual to decide as to how s/he wishes to be referred to, and that this should be respected. There can never be complete agreement over preferred terminology when referring to people collectively.

For related links:

New Beacon September 1993
New Beacon January 1994

New Beacon June 1994

Visually handicapped workers in local government

Content author: library@rnib.org.uk

Last updated: 08/04/2008 18:38