Briefly: Once it was called blind, deaf, it was replaced by the blind, the deaf, and then the visually impaired. On the initiative of the sick themselves, today, we go back to the factual facts about the state of health. Simple words like blind, deaf are acceptable again, even better than evasive euphemisms. And it's not just that fashion goes in circles - the main reason is surprisingly the effort to preserve the greatest dignity of the sick.
The change comes as usual in English. Anglo-French have weakness for euphemisms. In the chain of euphemisms, they have gone so far as to begin to call "people with disabilities", "people with reduced capacities". But when the enthusiasm of replacing short words like "blind", "deaf" descriptions unsuitable for infamy, people have realized that the euphemistic description actually carries out judgments about abilities, which is even worse than a simple statement of the disease. Beethoven was deaf, Maresjev was no-one, but he did not have the reduced ability (not at least compared to ordinary people). In an effort to address this, "disability" was further replaced by the cover word "challenge" as in untranslatable "mentally challenged". Further, the term "differently able" appeared, perhaps translated as "otherwise adapted", perhaps because of the fact that fashion psychiatric diagnoses (autism, pseudomonas "child hyperactivity with attention deficit disorder, Asperger syndrome ...) But the Beethoven insisted they were only deaf, and if they were "otherwise adapted", not because of their deafness. They have adapted their disability according to their possibilities, they know best what they are and are unable and feel embarrassed when others pretend to be true what is not true. The story of the English euphemisms for the handicapped I was looking only marginally to be "in" in grammar, so I think a little bit, but that's how it was. These topics, in particular, have certainly been written in the US, all the same, for what they are, for various weird "social group studies", so there should be no need for refinement literature for those interested.
More recently, however, in professional labeling of diseases, it has been neglected to see whether the words are used as pejorativa and the factual importance has been taken into account. Perhaps "crippled" is back in. (Do not mess with the creten, which is the most stale euphemism I know.) In English there are whole guidelines on how to use the words "impairment" ⊃ "disability" ⊃ "handicap". In Czech, the situation is less severe. Cover concepts of "physically / mentally disabled" are still descriptive and do not imply any trials, although for their greatest glory, a deeper factual description of the disability is considered to be inaccurate. In fact, the only word that can furiously be thrown is the disease / sick, which, after the English model, is replaced by the preferred forms of disease / ill. I write this text a bit too much to show that I know about it, even if I do not want to avoid the ill-used words sick, ill, hospital. Otherwise, I welcome the development towards etymological accuracy. I hope it will lead to the emancipation of other short, etymologically correct nosyms and ethnonymes, which have been mistakenly censored as mere insults.