I first grasped the disconnect between health care professionals and the public while designing a brochure for a cornea donation campaign.
My original concept featured a young boy smiling, wearing an eye shield—an approachable image meant to encourage public participation. But the overseeing specialist rejected it. He insisted instead on a clinical close-up of a post-surgical eye, sutures and all. To him, it represented medical success. To potential donors, it was unsettling.
Later feedback confirmed my concern: The clinical image, while meaningful to providers, alienated the very people it aimed to engage. That lesson stayed with me.
When good intentions miss the mark
This memory resurfaced as I reflected on the branding of patient-facing cancer centres—those hospitals and clinics where individuals receive diagnosis, treatment, and ongoing care. Across North America and beyond, many of these institutions label themselves as “Cancer Centres”—a term that makes sense from a clinical and operational standpoint. But for patients, the word “cancer” is more than a diagnosis. It’s an emotional flashpoint, loaded with fear, vulnerability, and grief.
Imagine:
- Receiving a reminder call: “This is the Cancer Centre calling …”
- Answering a friend’s question: “Where are you being treated?” “At the Cancer Centre.”
Each mention reinforces a diagnosis that patients may still be emotionally processing. For those who value privacy, these brand names can feel like involuntary disclosures—whether in a cab, at work, or during a casual conversation with extended family.
If patients were comfortable being visibly associated with their condition, wigs and scarves wouldn’t be so widespread. Yet their use persists, signaling the need for branding that protects privacy as much as it promotes awareness.
Metaphors matter: When “Carry the Fire” burns the wrong way
Some campaigns attempt to inject inspiration into health care branding. One example is the “Carry the Fire” campaign by the Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation in Canada. The intent was noble: To symbolize hope, resilience, and collective strength. But to those in active treatment, fire may not feel like a symbol of hope. It may instead bring to mind:
- The burning nausea of chemotherapy
- The searing pain of radiation
- The devastation of a disease that consumes lives
What inspires some may retraumatize others. Metaphors in health care carry emotional weight—and need to be chosen with care.
The science of stigma in health care language
Health care marketing is never neutral. Research in health communication and psychology shows that language influences how patients perceive care and whether they seek it at all.
For instance, a 2016 study by Dr. Camilla Zimmermann found that many patients avoided “palliative care” programs due to the stigma associated with the term—leading some providers to rebrand these services entirely.
Yet in many hospital systems, branding decisions still prioritize clinical accuracy or fundraising appeal over patient experience. Patient message testing—a cornerstone of commercial marketing—is often skipped in health care communications.
Toward more empathetic branding
Health care branding should honor both medical reality and human dignity. Small shifts in naming and messaging can make a profound difference:
- Involve patients and caregivers in naming and communication decisions.
- Test language with diverse, real-life audiences before launching campaigns.
- Avoid diagnostic labels in public-facing names (e.g., “Hope Centre” instead of “Cancer Centre”).
- Choose metaphors that inspire without inadvertently triggering pain.
Final thought
Health care providers may see strength and clarity in terms like “Cancer Centre” or campaigns like “Carry the Fire.” But healing is not only about clinical expertise. It’s also about empathy, language, and meeting patients where they are.
In a field built on care, our words should comfort as much as they inform.
Hamid Moghimi is a health communicator and registered practical nurse.
