1stlvlthinker wrote: ↑
Mon Dec 16, 2019 11:24 pm
AFRET CMS wrote: ↑
Mon Dec 16, 2019 9:52 pm
There is anaphylaxis, an allergic reaction which can lead to anaphylactic shock, but there is no such word as "anaphylaxic" in the medical lexicon.
Would "anaphylaxis" by itself have been accepted?
That's exactly what I said - "anaphylaxis" - and I gave myself credit. I don't think it'd even be a BMS situation - if so, I think I'd get it. Some dictionary googling says that anaphylaxis is "an acute allergic reaction", while anaphylactic shock is "an extreme, often life-threatening allergic reaction to an antigen to which the body has become hypersensitive". Shock refers to a large, sudden, and often life-threatening drop in blood pressure. But anaphylaxis alone can be life-threatening without needing the shock element to it - for example, swelling of the throat.
So, really, there's nothing to point to "anaphylaxis" over "anaphylactic shock", or vice versa. Or "anaphylactic reation" - all three seem like they should be acceptable.
ic shock" isn't a phrase I've ever heard. The word isn't in Merriam-Webster online, but OED? There's about a 95% chance that she knows both "anaphylaxis" and "anaphylactic shock", and just accidentally tongue-tied the words together as she was putting together the sentence. Much like if you were to say conversationally "He had a more....friendlier manner", when you start to say "more pleasant", but then switch to "friendlier" mid-stream after saying "more".
By the "spirit of the law", she knew the correct response. There's maybe a 5% chance that she thought "anaphylaxic" is a word - and by the "letter of the law", she got it wrong. But even so, they can be a little generous with mispronunciations if there are the right number of syllables, if it doesn't create an alternate word, and if the letters can reasonably be pronounced in more than one way. If you read "anaphylactic", maybe there's some way you can get an "x" sound from "ct".