[Epilepsy equivalents: a term in disuse?]

The term 'epileptic equivalent' has had different meanings in recent years, for both doctors and lawyers (who have copied their reports). Our interest is due to finding that in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court that we have reviewed, these terms are still taken into consideration when passing judgement or declaring a defendant immune from prosecution. This might mean a complete or partial defence, according to the grade of psychological illness of the person who commits the punishable act. Thus, there are still references to dysthymia, residual or larvate epilepsy, etcetera, and medical experts relate them directly to epileptic disorders, to judge from the references made in many of the sentences reviewed. This has influenced penal classification in one way or another. People who have never had an epileptic crisis have been considered to be epileptics. The same may also be said of the well-known epileptic character or epileptic personality. Therefore this paper considers the importance of language in this disorder. It invites relevant persons or institutions to unify opinions and modernize the terminology in accordance with modern scientific knowledge [REV NEUROL 1999; 28: 524-8].