Medical language, valorised for its diagnostic precision and communicative efficiency, routinely employs shorthand descriptors that reduce patients to their pathologies - phrases such as “a triple-zero psychotic,” “the cholecystitis in Bed 4,” or “the frequent flyer from ED.” Although intended to streamline clinical discourse, these linguistic conventions reproduce epistemic hierarchies that prioritise biomedical pathology over personhood, thereby fostering a ‘medical habitus’ of moral disengagement. This paper examines the ethical implications of depersonalising language in healthcare, drawing on thematic analysis of clinical communication observed during medical placements, particularly within handovers, ward rounds, and reviewing documentation. Anchored in the conceptual frameworks of feminist bioethics, narrative ethics, and epistemic injustice, the analysis demonstrates that such language undermines patients’ narrative authority, facilitates moral distancing, and legitimises diagnostic overshadowing; especially among individuals already marginalised by gender, race, mental illness, or disability. These patterns, often disseminated through the hidden curriculum of medical education, contribute to a broader erosion of ethical attentiveness and risk-rendering suffering invisible under the guise of clinical neutrality. Crucially, this paper argues that clinical language is not ethically inert but constitutive of the moral atmosphere in which care is delivered. When language collapses a life into a diagnosis, it does more than simplify - it morally reshapes the patient into a problem, not a person. Re-humanising clinical discourse thus emerges as a moral imperative: one that demands a reorientation of speech practices, not just as a matter of rhetorical sensitivity - but towards recognition, relationality, and the restoration of patients as narrative-bearing agents.