True, and I can get behind not doing that. But couldn't it also be the opposite. A way to foster a wider public understanding?
The less technical you'll be, the more understandable you'll be for the public, yes.
But there's a time where you starts to simplify too much and end being counter productive.
Take "Post Traumatic Syndrome Disease" by example. A bit technical, but relatively explicit. It's a condition, considered as medical, that happen after a trauma, therefore after an strong and hard experience.
Now, if by example you decide to call it "War Syndrome", what one will read behind this? Someone who consider war as being harsh will probably read it like PTSD. But an idiot redneck, a wanabe gansta will see it as something positive; you became a Rambo, but as seen in Rambo II, not as depicted in the first movie.
Or, to go on a more common topic, "mild autism"... While it's not an official name, it's often used to describe the less impacting form of autism. It's less obscure than "level 1 autism", but what people imagine behind this "mild"? Do they see it as the less impacting form of autism, or as someone "normal" that just act a bit differently?
In the first case they'll understand that it's still a handicap; they'll try to adapt to the person and its condition. In the second case they'll consider it as, at least a fad, at most a whim, and expect the person to adapt to them.
The worse being that all this is generally done with good intent in mind, as an attempt to ease the mind of those who suffer from the condition, and not as an attempt to make it acceptable by the public.
Imagine, you're in your late teenage years, and a psy tell you that you're schizophrenic or psychopath. All you know about this is what you seen in movie/TV series or read in novels; "my god, I'm psychopath, I'm Dexter, I want to torture and kill people..."
Therefore in place you'll be told in what category your schizophrenia or psychopathy fall in. And the softer will be your own condition, the more innocent its name will looks, for you to not over react, nor panic. But, as I implied above, the more innocent this name will looks, the more people will tend to brush your condition as being something made up that you can easily overcome. What is obviously absolutely not the case.
Edit: to avoid double post
Having said that, my grandpa's old army buddies preferred the term Shell Shock because of how badass it sounds.
And it actually sound badass.
But how many redneck wanabe Alpha males, and not just them, will think that he's a pussy because he suffered from some shells exploding around him? They never experienced it and are convinced that it's nothing at all.
I mean, Paton was removed of active service between Sicily campaign and after the D Day, because he slapped two soldiers suffering from Shell Shock, calling them cowards.