Use of standard terms is unlikely to result in standard communication

EDITOR,—Kenneth C Calman proposes a language of risk that seeks to introduce standardisation into our communication with patients about risks.1 The debate that he calls for must address three fundamental issues. Firstly, is it feasible or theoretically justifiable to translate estimates of risk derived from populations to individuals? Secondly, does current communication about risks meet patients' requirements and is it relevant to them? Thirdly, if we continue with a pragmatic approach to communication about risk, developing it in terms of language, how is this …