Whether in GP waiting rooms, workplace WhatsApp groups, parenting forums, or university common rooms, one question echoes across the UK:
“Can ChatGPT actually help with medical advice—and should we trust it?”
Since ChatGPT entered the public consciousness, millions have turned to AI for explanations of symptoms, help interpreting lab reports, reassurance during a health scare, or simply answers when GP appointments felt too far away. Meanwhile, policymakers, clinicians, and medical ethicists debate whether using AI in health consultations is a breakthrough or a ticking time bomb.
As a member of the UK academic community involved in assessing digital technologies’ societal impact, I see firsthand how transformative—and how polarising—the arrival of conversational AI has been for healthcare. Today, we are no longer discussing abstract future technologies. We are discussing real conversations with real consequences.
This commentary article explores the feasibility of using ChatGPT in medical and health consultations in the UK context—from its potential contributions to the NHS, to its risks, ethical implications, and the guardrails needed to ensure public safety.
Even before ChatGPT, the NHS was under immense strain. The UK faces:
Record appointment backlogs
Chronic GP shortages
Ageing population with complex comorbidities
Growing mental-health demand
Limited health literacy in many communities
Against this background, ChatGPT’s appeal becomes obvious. It is:
Always available
Free or low-cost
Non-judgmental
Surprisingly articulate
Capable of explaining complex medical concepts in plain English
For many people, ChatGPT becomes the “first stop” for health understanding—not necessarily the final one.
However, feasibility in healthcare is not merely about convenience. It involves accuracy, safety, ethics, accountability, data privacy, accessibility, and integration with the UK's existing clinical ecosystem.
Let us examine each dimension in depth.
One of ChatGPT’s strongest contributions is improving health literacy, especially for people who find medical information overwhelming. It can translate jargon like:
“idiopathic”
“polymicrobial”
“ejection fraction”
“seronegative”
“non-inferiority trial”
into plain English that a teenager could understand.
This alone has profound implications for patient empowerment.
Traditional web search can be a nightmare for anxious patients:
Too many contradictory answers
Alarmist content for mild symptoms
Commercial bias
Unfiltered forum anecdotes
ChatGPT provides structured explanations and reduces sensationalism. It often reminds users to see a clinician and highlights red-flag symptoms.
AI is not a therapist—but it can offer:
grounding techniques
empathetic conversation
psychoeducation
crisis support information
For individuals waiting weeks for NHS mental-health appointments, this interim support may be life-changing.
For patients with diabetes, hypertension, COPD, or arthritis, AI can help explain:
diet principles
medication schedules
basic monitoring practices
why lifestyle changes matter
This improves day-to-day self-management and reduces unnecessary GP visits.
AI is exceptionally good at:
reminding patients of tests
explaining referral letters
interpreting appointment notes
summarising after-care instructions
This lightens the load on NHS staff who often repeat the same clarifications.
For every success story, there is a cautionary tale. Let’s examine these risks candidly.
The media often refers to “hallucinations”—confident but incorrect answers. In medicine, hallucinations are not merely inconvenient; they can be deadly.
Examples include:
Invented statistics
Misinterpreted test results
Incorrect dosage explanations
Overconfident diagnoses for ambiguous symptoms
A system that is right most of the time but wrong unpredictably is fundamentally incompatible with clinical care.
Even when ChatGPT recommends seeing a healthcare professional, users may ignore that advice because the AI feels persuasive and conversational.
The UK has seen numerous reports of patients:
delaying care
misdiagnosing themselves
misunderstanding red-flag symptoms
due to misplaced trust in online tools.
ChatGPT cannot:
examine a patient
order tests
access medical history
detect subtle cues such as pallor, breathing patterns, or weight changes
Medicine is fundamentally personal; AI is fundamentally general.
If ChatGPT gives unsafe advice:
Who is responsible?
The AI developer?
The user?
The NHS, if integrated?
UK law has not fully caught up with such scenarios.
Although ChatGPT does not store personal data from individual interactions when set up in privacy-protected modes, public perception is mixed. People often reveal intimate health details without knowing who controls or audits the system.
Most AI models—including ChatGPT—explicitly avoid diagnosing. However, users frequently push them to infer diagnoses.
The question is not only “can AI diagnose?” but also:
Should it ever?
Under what regulation?
With what oversight?
This debate must include clinicians, regulators, ethicists, and the public.
AI may widen disparities:
Older adults may struggle with digital interfaces
Lower-income households may lack internet access
Non-native English speakers may receive inconsistent results
The NHS ethos demands equitable health access for all.
Some users begin turning to ChatGPT daily for reassurance, replacing real clinical evaluation. This can worsen anxiety and delay urgent care.
Patients deserve to know:
when they are interacting with AI
what data is used
what limitations exist
that AI is not a doctor
This must be mandated, not optional.
Rather than dismissing AI or embracing it blindly, the UK should pursue regulated integration.
ChatGPT-like models could:
categorise symptoms
highlight red flags
guide patients to appropriate services
Provided the system is medically validated, this could reduce A&E pressures.
Doctors spend excessive time on notes. AI can:
draft clinical summaries
prepare referral letters
extract key details from patient history
This frees clinicians to spend more time with patients.
AI could improve consistency in the NHS 111 system, reducing unnecessary A&E referrals while still ensuring safety.
ChatGPT can generate:
customised lifestyle guidance
smoking cessation education
vaccination explanations
medication safety reminders
Tailored health messaging is more effective than generic pamphlets.
We need NHS-approved benchmarks:
accuracy thresholds
red-flag accuracy verification
clinically validated datasets
mandatory disclaimers
Without these, AI is unfit for medical integration.
AI should support, not replace, clinical judgement.
Independent bodies must test AI models regularly—similar to drug safety monitoring.
We need clarity on:
liability
malpractice scenarios
commercial responsibilities
patient rights
AI literacy should become part of basic public health knowledge.
People must understand what AI can and cannot do.
ChatGPT typically explains:
possible causes (from benign to serious)
red flags like sweating, radiation, nausea
importance of emergency care
This is good—but not perfect.
It cannot assess facial expression, speech, or breathing.
ChatGPT can:
explain safe paracetamol doses
advise on hydration
highlight danger signs
But it cannot:
detect a rash
hear breathing
examine the child
ChatGPT can provide grounding statements and crisis hotline information.
It cannot replace professional risk assessment.
Here AI shines—explaining terms like:
“autoimmune markers”
“stage 1 hypertension”
“borderline iron deficiency”
This improves adherence and self-management.
Surveys show that:
Britons like AI for information
They distrust AI for diagnosis
They prefer human doctors but acknowledge long waits
Younger people embrace AI faster
Older adults express caution
This suggests a hybrid model is most acceptable.
improving health literacy
supporting self-management
reducing misinformation
providing mental-health support
assisting with documentation
triage support under strict oversight
diagnosing complex conditions
providing personalised treatment
replacing clinicians
managing emergencies
ChatGPT should be part of the UK health ecosystem—but as an assistant, never a clinician.
With proper governance, AI can relieve NHS pressures, support patient understanding, and improve outcomes. Without it, AI risks becoming a source of confusion, inequity, or even harm.
The UK must lead with caution, compassion, and scientific rigour.
The question is no longer whether AI will influence healthcare—it already does.
The real question is:
“Will we shape that influence responsibly, or let it evolve unchecked?”
The UK has a proud tradition of evidence-based medicine, ethical debate, and public-centred care. We must uphold these values as we integrate AI into one of the most sensitive areas of human life: our health and wellbeing.
If we do this thoughtfully, ChatGPT may become one of the most powerful tools ever created for public health empowerment.
If we do not, it risks becoming another source of noise in an already overwhelmed system.
The choice—and the responsibility—is ours.
