They reflect on the war language in communication about cancer.

The use of war language and sports metaphors in the context of illnesses, especially cancer, has sparked a deep debate in the fields of journalism and communication. During the XVII International Seminar on Language and Journalism "The Language of Wars: How to Tell the Conflict," the implications of this type of language on the social perception of diseases and the lived experience of patients were discussed. Participants agreed that, while these metaphors can be effective in other contexts, their application to cancer can distort reality and generate a sense of guilt in those suffering from the disease. The roundtable, moderated by Almudena Martínez, general coordinator of the San Millán de la Cogolla Foundation, brought together experts in linguistics, journalism, and oncology. One of the most notable points was the statement by Juan Ramón Lucas, a journalist and general secretary of the Sandra Ibarra Foundation for Solidarity Against Cancer, who emphasized that "cancer is not a battle, nor are patients warriors." This statement resonates with a reality that many patients face: the fact that it is not always possible to "overcome" the illness, and war language can lead to a double burden, where the patient not only deals with their disease but also with the weight of expectations imposed by such narratives. Lucas advocated for a more realistic and direct representation of cancer, suggesting that it is preferable to "call cancer by its name." He criticized the use of expressions that aim to soften the situation, arguing that "not everything is rosy" and that positive attitudes do not guarantee overcoming the illness. This direct approach could provide relief to those patients who feel pressured by the idea of having to "fight" and "win" a war that, due to the nature of the disease, is not always possible. Inés Olza, a linguist from the Institute of Culture and Society at the University of Navarra, proposed alternatives to war language, such as referring to cancer as a "path" or a "journey." Although these metaphors are considered gentler, they also reflect the complexity of the patient's experience. Olza recalled that the use of warlike terms is not exclusive to cancer, as similar language was also used during the COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting that the war rhetoric is a common tool in communication about public health crises. Linguist Laura Filardo pointed out that language not only describes reality but also constructs it. The metaphors used, including euphemisms, can carry significant ideological weight. By comparing the fight against cancer to a war, there is a risk of trivializing the experience of patients and distorting the complexities of the disease. This reflection is crucial at a time when clear and empathetic communication is more necessary than ever. On the other hand, Jesús Castañón, a professor of Spanish Language and Literature, highlighted the impact of sports on popular culture and how war rhetoric has even permeated this realm. According to Castañón, sports language has transformed playing spaces into "battlefields," where triumph and defeat are experienced with epic intensity. However, by transferring this metaphor to illnesses, the personal and unique experience of each patient is overlooked. This seminar underscores a necessary discussion about how the language we choose affects not only the way we understand reality but also how patients feel about their illness. The insistence on using more humane and truthful language could be a step towards creating a more understanding and less stigmatizing environment for cancer patients. In light of this reflection on language, the question arises: how can we find a balance between using metaphors that help communicate difficult experiences and the need to be true to the reality of diseases like cancer? This is a challenge that concerns not only journalists but also healthcare professionals, patients, and society as a whole. The seminar concluded with a call to action for both the media and healthcare professionals to reconsider the language they use. The possibility of building a discourse that not only informs but also respects and values the patient's experience is a task that requires deep reflection and a commitment to empathy. In conclusion, the debate on war language and its impact on the perception of cancer highlights the need for a change in communication about illnesses. It is not just about choosing words but about creating a space where patients feel understood and supported in their personal journey.