Terminology can affect patients
Words do more than describe — they shape how we think, how we feel, and how we treat one another. In medicine, this is especially true. The language we use around illness doesn't just reflect attitudes; it actively forms them. A single word can determine whether a patient feels supported or shamed, whether they seek help or stay silent.
Words that stigmatise affect patients, relatives, and healthcare workers in their perception of a disease. They can influence the behaviour of an entire society towards an illness. The stigma endured by patients with substance-related problems, for example, can prevent them from seeking help and add an unnecessary psychological burden. I am talking about people formerly referred to as "addicts" or "substance abusers" — terms that reduce a human being to a diagnosis and carry an unmistakable tone of moral judgement.
It is time to remove the suggestion that a health condition is a moral, social, or criminal issue. Just as we no longer speak of cretins, imbeciles, or idiots when classifying psychiatric patients, we need to adopt new ways when referring to substance use disorders. Language evolves, and medicine should lead that evolution rather than lag behind it.
Why this matters for medical translators
It has become popular in some circles to mock political correctness, and I myself have shaken my head at some of its excesses. But when factual evidence supports a change in terminology — when research shows that the words we use directly affect patient outcomes — I will listen.
The World Health Organisation has long outlined the importance of using appropriate terminology in relation to controlled substances. The potential consequences of using imprecise or judgemental language extend beyond individual encounters: they can shape government policies, influence public perception, and determine whether people feel safe enough to access the care they need. A particular duty lies with medical journals read by healthcare professionals, but that duty extends further — to everyone who works with clinical language, including medical translators.
When we translate a clinical document from one language to another, we are not simply moving words across a boundary. We are making choices. Every synonym we select, every phrase we construct, carries its own connotation. And in that process of choosing, we have the opportunity — and the responsibility — to select terms that respect the patient rather than define them by their condition.
A few examples of how stigma can be avoided
"Abuse" → "Substance use disorder"
The word "abuse" or equivalent words in other languages should generally be avoided unless there is a particular scientific justification. Alternatives such as "substance use disorder" describe the clinical reality without passing judgement.
"Drug" → "Medication" or "Medicine"
The word "drug" is ambiguous — it can mean a prescribed medication or a non-medically used psychoactive substance. The recommendation is to use "medication" or "medicine" when referring to therapeutic products, reserving "drug" only where the ambiguity is intentional or unavoidable.
"Addict" → "Person with substance use disorder"
Medical writers should use person-first language. "Person with substance use disorder" acknowledges the individual before the illness. Language that defines people by a diagnosis — such as "addict" — strips away personhood and reinforces stigma.
"Misuse" → "Non-medical use" or simply "Use"
The word "misuse" implies blame. Less judgemental alternatives like "non-medical use" describe the behaviour without attaching a moral verdict to it.
The translator's role
Medical translators sit at a unique junction. We move language between cultures, and in doing so, we have the chance to carry forward the best of modern clinical thinking — or to perpetuate outdated attitudes without even noticing. A German text might use a term that was standard twenty years ago but is now considered stigmatising. An English source document might contain language that, when rendered literally into French or Spanish, takes on an even harsher tone. It is our job to recognise these moments and to make the better choice.
This does not mean sanitising or softening clinical precision. It means being precise in a way that is also humane. The two are not in conflict.
Awareness of stigmatisation is the first step in preventing it. If a translation allows us to choose a non-judgemental term, I think we should not hesitate and do our bit to help eradicate all stigmata attached to diseases. Words matter. In medicine, they matter even more. ← Back to Blog