Metaphors permeate medical language, often portraying illness as war, invasion, or a machine malfunction. Susan Sontag's personal experience with cancer profoundly impacted her understanding of illness metaphors, leading her to critique their harmful romanticization and stigmatization. This paper investigates the detrimental effects of inappropriate illness metaphors, drawing primarily on Sontag's novel *In America*, published twenty years before the COVID-19 pandemic. The research posits that *In America* foreshadowed the real-world traumas inflicted by illness metaphors during and after the pandemic. Three levels of trauma are analyzed: personal, social, and national, exemplified by the experiences of Maryna and Ryszard, the protagonists of *In America*. The paper aims to explore the metaphorization of illness, the traumas caused by inappropriate metaphors, similar phenomena during and after COVID-19, and the role of illness narratives in mitigating these negative effects.

The paper extensively reviews Sontag's work, *Illness as Metaphor* and *AIDS and its Metaphors*, highlighting her argument that illness should not be treated metaphorically. It contrasts Sontag's view with other scholars' perspectives on metaphors, acknowledging that Lakoff and Ricoeur found metaphors pervasive in daily life. The authors reference Kleinman's work on illness perception as culturally shaped, showing that illness is easily misinterpreted or stigmatized. The literature review includes work by Goffman on stigma, Semino on the duality of illness metaphors (positive and negative functions), and Broyard on positive metaphors of illness, showing a divergence of opinion from Sontag’s position.

The paper employs a qualitative approach, primarily analyzing Sontag's novel *In America* to illustrate the three levels of trauma—personal, social, and national—caused by inappropriate illness metaphors. The analysis draws on literary and thematic interpretations of the novel, relating specific events and character experiences to the broader discussion of illness metaphors. The authors then extend the analysis to the COVID-19 pandemic by examining existing scholarly research on the metaphorization of COVID-19 and its impact on individuals, communities, and nations. The methodology also involves a critical review of relevant literature on illness narratives, narrative medicine, and the role of communication in mitigating the negative impacts of stigmatizing metaphors.

The analysis of *In America* reveals how illness metaphors create various traumas. The personal level is shown through Maryna's family history of tuberculosis and the resulting stigmatization and psychological distress. The social level is illustrated by the stigmatization of syphilis, particularly impacting lower-class individuals. The national level is reflected in the portrayal of Poland's division and its representation as a “sick” nation. The study then demonstrates how the metaphorization of COVID-19 parallels these patterns. It explores how the stigmatization of COVID-19 patients, healthcare workers, and entire countries (e.g., China) created personal, social, and national traumas. The militaristic framing of COVID-19 as a "war" is also analyzed. The paper finds several factors contributing to illness metaphorization: cognitive errors, exploitation for financial gain, the limitations of medical understanding, and the media's role in sensationalism. The paper emphasizes the negative aspects of metaphors such as “illness is immorality/punishment” and militaristic metaphors.

The findings support the paper's central argument that inappropriate illness metaphors cause significant trauma on personal, social, and national levels. The parallels drawn between *In America* and the COVID-19 pandemic highlight the enduring relevance of Sontag's critique. While complete elimination of metaphors is impossible, the authors emphasize the need to be mindful of the context and potential harm of specific metaphors. The discussion emphasizes that while some metaphors may empower patients, many are disempowering and harmful, particularly those perpetuating stigma and discrimination. The paper also touches upon how the media's role in sensationalizing diseases can worsen the problem.

The paper concludes that while Sontag's call for the complete removal of metaphors from medical discourse is unrealistic, her work highlights the critical need to address the detrimental impact of inappropriate illness metaphors. Illness narratives are presented as a valuable tool for mitigating these negative effects by fostering empathy, promoting accurate medical information, and allowing patients to share their experiences. This approach is particularly relevant in the post-pandemic era. Further research should investigate the effectiveness of illness narratives in diverse cultural contexts and explore other potential strategies for promoting responsible language surrounding illness.

The study's primary limitation stems from its reliance on textual analysis of *In America* and secondary sources on COVID-19. The absence of primary data from patients or healthcare professionals limits the generalizability of the findings. Further limitations include the lack of demographic data and the potential influence of cultural and religious factors on individual responses to illness metaphors. Additionally, the study’s focus is primarily on negative impacts of illness metaphors; further research should examine positive uses more comprehensively.