Call addicts addicts

I write in response to the August 16 story by Joel Wolfram [WHYY’s “Don’t call people addicts”], which suggests that changing the way in which we refer to "addicts" and "alcoholics" will somehow result in a happier and better future for those so afflicted.

This proposal, apparently based on research at the University of Pennsylvania, is as pointless as removing historical monuments dedicated to whatever may now be deemed "politically­ incorrect."

Both are absurd.

Referring to an addict as a "person who uses substances", or to an alcoholic as a "person with a substance use disorder" does not and cannot alter reality.

I am sympathetic to those individuals and their families who suffer from either one of these illnesses. I have close family members who suffer from both. But it is naive, and perhaps even dangerous, to think that changing what we call it is a rational, productive solution.

Facts are curious things. They do not disappear, as if by waving a magic wand, based on the label we choose to attach to them.

Sharon Reiss

Mt. Airy

Thanks for counseling article

Thank you for publishing the article about Mt. Airy resident Max Rivers and his new book "Loving Conflict: A New Alternative to Couples Counseling." [“Rivers in Mt. Airy bringing smooth waters to marriages,” Aug. 9.

The book and Rivers' workshops not only helped in my primary relationship with my husband, but I am using Non-Violent Communication (NVC) in my day-to-day communication with friends, family, and colleagues.

Due to an editing error in the original article published in another publication, the website should have read www.themarriagemediator.net.

I highly encourage your readers to learn more through his resource-packed website.

Barbara Sherf

Flourtown