I was reading about the recent horrific I-95 bus crash when I came across a sentence that made me realize how much I dislike the way newspapers and TV journalists use the word "shock".
I should explain: This feeling comes from my remembrance of vaguely hearing or reading somewhere that "going into shock" has a very precise use in medicine, to wit, that it is a term having to deal with the rapid loss of blood pressure, or an extreme infection, or something or the other that is at the very least scientifically quantifiable. But often I find that journalists and reporters seem to conflate what I remember to be that precise medical term with the ordinary English sense of the word "shock", as in stunned or left speechless. In the above article, for example, a doctor describes the driver, who almost singularly amongst the survivors was not left dead or critically injured -- hence could not have suffered much blood loss? -- as being "[put] into shock." Even if that story isn't directly applicable here, I have seen plenty of stories describing unharmed witnesses of some huge tragedy as "going into shock", as opposed to say, being described as "shell-shocked", a word that I think is more apt.
Am I remembering what I heard correctly? Is the article using the term "shock" in a medically kosher sense? Is it a precise term, or a "catch-all" that can be used by doctors and journalists alike?