I agree with an article in Open Mike that states in part:

No, cancer is not evil. It is many terrible things but it is not evil in the traditional sense of the word because it lacks moral premeditation. Evil is usually defined as “the quality of being morally bad or wrong.” Evil requires a moral agent behind the action.

Even so, to simply refer to cancer as cancer does not help find the cause nor promote a cure.

Jamie Huysman says that, "Isolation is a 'cancer' for the recovering person's soul." He uses "cancer" in the sense of something evil or malignant that spreads destructively. Is Mr. Huysman to be castigated for using this analogy because both "isolation" and "cancer" are anthropomorphized?

Your premise initially reminded me of what the brethren on occasion say, "Hate the sin but love the sinner." "Hate and "love," however, are both subjective and under your premise would neither stop the sin nor enlighten the sinner.

You seem to suggest we use euphemisms to describe the transgressions of nonconformists. Again, by analogy, I understand your premise to be akin to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in the criminal law of the United States.

Of course, a person is not bad nor an abuser, and should not be condemned, until the facts have been investigated and there is reasonable proof the person's conduct has not conformed to the norms of society. It is only then that the person fairly may be described as bad or evil.

Then again, as you say, there are difficult situations that create the possibility for mistakes and unsuccessful attempts at treatment. For me, what immediately comes to mind are the traumas experienced by dissociatives.

Those who have been traumatized may thereafter suffer from dissociative amnesia and dissociative identity disorder. The victims of the trauma cannot recall precisely what happened, but something so outrageous happened that caused them to resort to multiple personalities to protect themselves.

The irony here is the victim is often not believed yet suffers severe emotional problems that are difficult to treat. The person responsible for the trauma goes on his/her merry way without consequences, and may repeat his behavior unless there is evidence to believe he has transgressed against society's norms.

If the transgressor should seek professional help and the therapist finds circumstances which may explain or help understand the transgressor's actions, does that fact exonerate him or save him from condemnation? These findings may as a result of a plea for leniency affect the sentence but do not excuse the behavior.

What about the dissociative who cannot provide sufficient proof to convict the transgressor, yet must relive the trauma to purge and desensitize the flashbacks that prevent him/her from having a meaningful life? Is he or she to be chastised for thinking badly of the person who has made his or her life a living hell?