This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
Explanation: The literal translation, "history of apparent health", is used repeatedly to mean that the patient has a history of no previous long-standing disease (but it does not have widespread use, implying that its occurrence is due to literal translation of the Spanish phrase). A more adequate English expression, thus, is "history of good health", which is used in medical literature.
I think we might all agree that past medical history (antecedentes de salud/antecedentes medicoquirúrgicos) is a broader concept than medical condition (problema de salud, problema médico, enfermedad), and that the former always includes the latter.
As for aparente in "antecedentes de salud aparente", as is, it modifies "salud" (aparente, singular) and not "antecedentes" (plural). And so aparente in "salud aparente" could be read both as "seeming" -"seeming healthy past medical history"- or as "good" -"past medical history of good health". Both readings point to the more natural rendering "sin antecedentes de interés" (no relevant past medical history).
And by the way, even though hypertension (for example) is generally a current medical condition included in patient's PMH, it need not be so; it could well be a temporary past condition, actually resolved with no need of chronic medication (and so it would still be part of the patient's PMH although not a current medical condition; and so "past" would not be redundant), but it could also be part of a family PMH (i.e. my deceased grandfather had hypertension; not a current med condition, & "past" (PMH) being non redundant again)
Besides, for instance, a person who had cancer in 2005 and had a tumor removed, underwent chemotherapy and radiotherapy, cannot say that that is part of their medical history (as the illness only recedes, you do not get cured), and neither has the patient got an active cancer as a current active illness... it accounts for a medical condition, and it certainly affects the past medical history and the current health conditions due to the effects treatments might have had on the patient's metabolism and organs, longlasting in many cases.
antecedentes de salud APARENTE / medical condition
14:38 Mar 12, 2020
Hi Neil, maybe the word "APARENTE", to appear, to be noticeable, "la aparición", the Heideggerian Schein sounds confusing in terms of the temporality the phrase refers to, between past and present, and I think that "medical condition" summarises both medical background and current or chronic illnesses well. My point was this one. As for your last statement, when they check family health background they ask the question "Do your relatives have any past medical history (past being redundant) of diabetes, high blood pressure, etc.?"
Hi Veronica, If you are aware of the difference, why did you write "Antecedentes de salud Is "medical condición" in the UK, everywhere."? Your implication is that they are the same thing when they aren't. Doesn't make sense to me. When they ask "if they [immigrants] have any medical condition" it only refers to current and chronic illnesses, this does not include past medical history, surgeries, etc. You seem to be talking about border control, which is very specific and not really anything to do with medical reports. At border control they don't care if someone broke their leg 10 years ago, so they are not assessing "the medical history of a patient or passenger" just their present condition. By the way, "past medical history" is not a reference to "family history of illness", they're also two different things.
Neil, thank you for your comment. I am aware of the difference. However, working daily with UK hospitals and Immigrations interviews and others, whenever they wish to assess the medical history of a patient or passenger, they just ask whether they have any medical condition. They only sometimes, when referring to family medical assessment, refer to "past medical history of"... only occasionally. That was my point.
Veronica, "Antecedentes de salud" does not mean "medical condición" [sic] in the UK or anywhere else. It means "[past] medical history", i.e. previous medical conditions, surgeries, therapies, chronic illnesses/medications, etc.
Aparente (DRAE) Vistoso, de buena apariencia (coloquial). También, conveniente, oportuno, adecuado. Aunque muy poco habitual en mi medio, entiendo que se intenta decir antecedentes de buena salud ("salud aparente") -o lo que sería un equivalente más habitual, tanto en castellano como en inglés, "sin antecedentes médicos de interés" (no relevant past medical history).
I've printed out our discussion and sent it to ProZ as feedback for the way the site works. Thanks again to all who chimed in on the answer and in this discussion.
No, that's what closed means, it's definitive ;@) - it doesn't reopen and the knee-jerk answer goes in the glossary before half the world has had time to see the question and give their opinion. Most specialists in medicine who frequent Kudoz won't even receive the question because it's closed already. This is what irks me about "first past the post Qs".
Just out of interest, I tried withdrawing my agree to see what happened. I think Pedro's answer should have been "apparent good health", but I gave him the benefit of the doubt. The question should have reopened, but it hasn't.
Why agree and close the question after 15 minutes? That's not even time to formulate a proposal, never mind discuss the options. I think Paul will see the problem now. ;@)
Yes, I'm about to agree with Pedro's answer, which will close the question. But what if we subsequently find that the most popular answer is wrong? It happens all the time.
It's difficult for one person to get the whole website changed, but I think it should be compulsory to award points to satisfactory answers after a certain time has elapsed. It's just a nice way of saying thank you.
Thanks for the input, Phil. I'm from a different neighborhood so haven't learned the taboos here yet. Thanks for your patience. I wonder if you or Neil have voiced these concerns to ProZ? I'm sure they would be glad to hear some solid feedback.
Hi Paul, I see you are relatively new to Kudoz, so probably still sussing it out... it's no biggie.
First validated answers are bad for the glossary and you as well Paul, because the problem doesn't receive its due discussion and consideration. FWIW, I think your source text may well be errant, so you might not get a correct response.
In the end I can't help myself and I'm going to give you my opinion, see answer below ;@)
First validated answer mode - not worth spending time on these questions if the asker can't be bothered to spend the time to select the most suitable answer.
Automatic update in 00:
Answers
3 mins confidence: peer agreement (net): -1
con aparente buen estado de salud anteriormente
Explanation: It seems to me that the pacient has been a healthy person , previously
Jackie Hendler Uruguay Local time: 20:03 Native speaker of: Spanish
Explanation: The literal translation, "history of apparent health", is used repeatedly to mean that the patient has a history of no previous long-standing disease (but it does not have widespread use, implying that its occurrence is due to literal translation of the Spanish phrase). A more adequate English expression, thus, is "history of good health", which is used in medical literature.
Example sentence(s):
General entry criteria for the study were a history of good health (i.e., no eating disorders, no medications or illnesses likely to affect appetite or cognition)
peer agreement (net): -1
