The study of wording and its impact on medical practice is key for the training of future physicians. Negative, imprecise, and disrespectful terms are still widespread in the medical field and contribute to the stigmatization of people in treatment, which ultimately limits their access to care. In this study, we explore the feasibility and acceptability of a method to investigate medical students’ perceptions of wording and stigma. This method involves a questionnaire that medical students complete after having read a clinical vignette. One of the two versions of the vignette is made available, which only varies in the way the patient is referred to (“substance abuser” vs. “having a substance use disorder”). Medical students from the University of Lausanne between their first and sixth year were contacted via the university’s mailing lists. They were randomly exposed to one of the two versions of the vignette and responded to the questionnaire online. This exploratory study shows that it is feasible and acceptable to assess the influence and perceptions of stigmatizing terminology among students through a vignette-based questionnaire comparing two wording options. In line with the initial study, we find trends in favor of the non-stigmatizing terminology; however, beliefs are widely held about the need for judicial “punishment” to address consumption behavior. No statistically significant differences are found between the two groups. The study of wording and its impact on access to care is a crucial issue which seems necessary to integrate into pre-graduate training. It permits the deconstruction of prejudices related to medical knowledge and offers perspectives for intervention and research to improve the right to health, which includes the fundamental right to access to care.