Naming the Beast

The word "sensitivity" in "chemical sensitivity" has always troubled me.  If my cellular defenses against chemicals were still perfectly intact and I were hearing about a "chemically sensitive" person for the very first time, I confess I might feel an ugly backlash in the privacy of my mind and heart.  I might look at the person sideways, wondering what type of self-centered coddling was driving such hysteria.  I might be tempted to tell the poor person to "straighten up and fly right."  I would be irritated.  The term would rankle me. 

It does rankle me.    

I associate the word "sensitivity" with the emotional connotations of "hypersensitivity" -- an overly sensitive nature prone to taking offense at the slightest thing.  Translated into the physical realm, the term "sensitivity" conjures up visions of flagrantly effusive and paranoid hypochondria . . . not to mention the maddening narcissism of excessive self-preoccupation. 

So, when I use the phrase "chemical sensitivity" or "multiple chemical sensitivity," I feel as though I've agreed to play ball by somebody else's rules -- rules by which I've already lost the game.  I believe now that, by calling myself "chemically sensitive,"  I've unwittingly consented to demean myself as an allegedly sappy, weak character with an allegedly sappy, weak physical constitution goaded on by my allegedly sappy, weak, and presumably self-consumed emotional disposition.  Never mind the chemicals -- the matter of chemicals is quickly forgotten in favor of the more visible, tangible thing at hand; namely, me.  With that, the spotlight is already shining on the wrong end of the problem.

Having pondered this long enough, I'm now choosing to refer to MCS as "toxic injury" -- harm done by actual poisonous substances to the cellular defenses of the body.  This term, I believe, puts the emphasis where it belongs:  on the toxic substances.  Focusing on the victim's personality, state of mind, or presumed character flaws is a handy and often effective distraction fomented by the opposition.  The essence of the matter is this:  EVEN an extremely irritating and self-consumed hypochondriac can fall prey to toxic injury.  As can the most rational, selfless, balanced humanitarian.  Personality traits neither rule in nor rule out toxic injury.  Toxic injury is so very real and so very bad, it stands boldly on its own.

And so it happened that, this very evening, the mouth of the beast (a neighboring dryer vent) opened to spew out its carcinogenic, nose-burning, nerve-crippling fumes into my friend's backyard, instantly ending our conversation and my visit.  (There were lesser but potential irritants inside, so outside had been deemed better.)

Within seconds, the invisible cloud of caustic scent overtook my friend's entire house and yard.  Her windows, far from airtight, would not have been sufficient to block the fumes.  As I ran to the shelter of my car, the insanity of it all hit me hard.  "'Sensitivity,' my foot," I thought to myself.  "This is slow and steady poisoning, over and over and over again."

Yes, some are poisoned and disabled sooner than others.  But how horrifying it is to have to contemplate who will be better off, in the long run -- those who can smell this stuff and feel it now for the poison that it is, or those whose bodies are literally swimming in excessive amounts of it, while they are totally unaware of its tenacious, destructive strength?

The chemicals in common laundry products and other common products really are "that bad."  Under such dire conditions, the last thing I want to do is rankle unknowing others by introducing explanations of toxic injury with potentially irritating and distracting terminology which helps to discredit me the minute I speak.

Where does that leave the rest of my blog, which is bursting at the seams with referrals to the syndrome of "MCS?"  It leaves the rest of my blog just as it is.  I fully recognize that the word "sensitivity" is an accepted medical term in its own right, applicable to many different types of physical sensitivities.  I fully recognize, also, that "Multiple Chemical Sensitivity/MCS" has become a common "language" of choice for the phenonemon and ensuing repercussions of toxic injury.  Furthermore, I fully recognize that I and many, many others have grabbed onto the subject of toxic injury and its repercussions by this very name -- "MCS" -- and that the experts whom I tremendously respect are also using this term.  I am not in any way attempting to downgrade those who continue to use this term.  How could I?  I wouldn't have a leg to stand on.  I, myself, have used the term "MCS" for 20 years now.  Please rest assured that all of you, no matter how you choose to refer to the syndrome of toxic injury and its destructive ramifications, have my ongoing respect and regard.  I'm putting my new point of view on this matter "out there" specifically for your reflection and discussion.

I've been suspecting for a while that there is an unspoken dignity to the phrase "toxic injury" which the phrase "multiple chemical sensitivity" simply does not enjoy.  I believe this because I've seen at least one person give clear concern and immediate attention to the issue when it was called 'toxic injury" as opposed to when the issue was approached with the less definitive, less assertive-sounding term "chemical sensitivity," or "MCS," or the "certain smells make me sick" approach.  "Multiple chemical sensitivity" is also a more cumbersome phraseology than the short, sweet, and firm "toxic injury."  Finally, I believe that the word "sensitivity" -- which comes across in casual conversation as a tentative, vague, and highly subjective term -- fails to do justice to the outrageous resultant phenomenon of one's being repeatedly poisoned by unnecessarily toxic elements in commonly used products.

"Toxic injury," it seems to me, gets straight to the point.  And the negative emphasis is on the molecular aggressor, not the victim.  While it is likely that some toxically injured people were, in a sense, "set up" for this destructive invasion of their bodies by prior unrelated illnesses, medications, trauma, or other serious stressors, the fact remains that a person whose biological "walls" have, in the end, been breached by toxins now becomes a repeat victim of toxic injury whenever he encounters even small amounts of toxins.

Toxic injury is an injury that just keeps multiplying as it goes along.  Moreover, the more toxic products there are in public and private usage, the more rapidly we're lowering the threshold for that initial toxic injury to occur to more and more people.

The equation is alarming. 

Which term do you favor -- "multiple chemical sensitivity" or "toxic injury?"  Please let me know your thoughts.

Cheers!

~ Carolyn