That's an easy one: "Patient." "Client" is not a bad second choice (especially compared to "consumer" or the Illinois DMH favorite, "recipient)" but "patient" wins out, in my view (yes, I'm an M.D.). Here are three reasons that make sense to me:

First, in spite of rampant decrying of clinical elitism and an over-striving for egalitarianism, "patient" conveys a specific responsibility for the clinician (which is, incidentally, recognized in many state laws related to standard of care and malpractice). "Patients" are special, and deserve special attention and professional competence. "Clients" seem to me a pretty generic bunch, with an (informal) implication that they are simply the ones paying the bill.

Second, the term "patient" implies to me an entitlement. The person is entitled not only to certain things from the clinician, but also to, at times, to be needy, or even "sick."

Finally, there is a very practical side to the "patient" role. A very nice "patient" (he prefers the term) with bipolar disorder was a senior consultant in the Clinton administration. (He went public with his condition long ago. The administration is irrelevant, although I must give Clinton credit for having the flexibility and good sense to keep his talents around the White House.) I had an opportunity to hear him speak twice in relatively small, professional groups, and on both occasions he strongly recommended that the mental health psychiatric community refer to people like him as "patients," and call their disorders "illnesses" rather than something like "problems of living." He was quite concerned that managed care companies, Congress, funding agencies, and others who influence the financing and regulations regarding mental health care would use "client," "behavioral health," etc. to place mental illness in a lower priority than other "medical" illness. His story made a big impact on me; I dedicated a book to him.

Bill Reid
Moderator, Law & Ethics forum