Or should addiction be added as an example of a genetic disease?
Or should addiction be added as an example of a social disease or simply a genetic lack of resolve and personal responsibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Should PREGNANCY be listed as a chronic condition? Surely not!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 12:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
The section on the use of "chronic" metaphorically should be removed. The work "chronic" is from the Greek "chronos" meaning "time". The word now is defined as follows by Merriam-Websters.
"1 a: marked by long duration or frequent recurrence : not acute <chronic indigestion> <chronic experiments> b: suffering from a chronic disease <the special needs of chronic patients>2 a: always present or encountered; especially : constantly vexing, weakening, or troubling <chronic petty warfare> b: being such habitually <a chronic grumbler>"
As always, the first definition in a dictionary is the more specialized definition, but even it is not confined to illness (e.g., chronic experiments). The second defintion implies an incredibly generalized meaning.
"Chronic inflation" is using defintion 2a of the word chronic. Please delete the entire section. This has nothing to do with metaphor.
To me, as a doctor, "chronic" does, indeed, mean "long-standing; long duration".
Many people, however, use the word to mean something like "bad; worse than I'd expect; severe". So when a doctor refers to a chronic pain, they mean one that has gone on for a long time (or is likely to do so); a patient may just use the word to emphasise the pain's severity.
I don't know how or whether to reflect this in this article.
Is there a reason the intro states chronic diseases are a "human" health condition? Although the examples are slanted towards humans, I would assume that a chronic disease is based on the time of the illness, not the species. SabarCont 08:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
I conditionallysupport this move, as the title is much more natural sounding. I think most things described by chronic, including symptoms, signs and diseases, can be adequately described as a "condition". --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Support. If the article was/were about the term itself, the current title would fit. However, the test of the article bar a sentence of two is about chronic conditions. (Furthermore, some might consider the current title ambiguous as the chronic is purported to have medicinal uses.) — AjaxSmack 13:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Strong support in principle and support in practice. I can imagine there being a better title, maybe, but probably not a worse one. I would've guessed that this was talking about some medicine called "chronic". RedSlash 18:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
A very good point that I agree with -- "I can imagine there being a better title, maybe, but probably not a worse one". --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.