There’s no reason for concern — you can continue posing all of your pressing health-related questions to ChatGPT just as before. Despite a flurry of online discussions on Monday morning, including a number of news reports and social media posts on X (formerly Twitter) — one of which came from the well-known prediction market platform Kalshi — claims that OpenAI’s ChatGPT had ceased offering health advice turned out to be somewhat misleading. The situation is far more nuanced: ChatGPT is still perfectly capable of providing medically relevant information to help users better understand health topics. What it cannot do, and has in fact never been authorized to do, is impersonate a licensed medical professional or act as a substitute for a physician’s expertise.
In an official statement provided to *Business Insider*, an OpenAI spokesperson clarified the issue. The representative emphasized that there has been no fundamental alteration to the platform’s terms of use. ChatGPT, they asserted, has never functioned as a replacement for professional advice — whether legal or medical — but rather as a powerful informational resource designed to promote clearer understanding of complex topics. The company’s position has always been that its AI models serve an educational and supportive role, guiding users through intricate content while maintaining a strict boundary that distinguishes general knowledge from formal consultation.
Much of the current misunderstanding seems to have stemmed from OpenAI’s updated usage policies, which were revised on October 29. These amendments introduced more explicit language regarding how users should approach medically sensitive questions. The new guidelines specify that OpenAI’s services may not be used for the “provision of tailored advice requiring a license,” explicitly naming fields such as medicine and law, unless a qualified, licensed professional is appropriately involved in the process. In other words, the company reaffirmed that generating customized health recommendations or diagnostic judgments remains beyond the permissible scope of its AI tools.
This clarification comes at a time when ChatGPT continues to enjoy massive popularity among individuals seeking accessible explanations for medical matters. Millions of users employ the chatbot to interpret confusing terminology, prepare for upcoming doctor visits, or gain a preliminary understanding of their symptoms before consulting a practitioner. According to a 2024 survey from KFF, approximately one in six individuals reported turning to ChatGPT for some form of health guidance at least once a month — a clear indicator of how deeply integrated the chatbot has become in people’s approach to learning about personal well-being.
Understandably, the suggestion that ChatGPT might suddenly cease to provide any health-related information startled many regular users. In response to Kalshi’s widely circulated post, which attracted more than 2,100 likes by early Monday afternoon, one user half-jokingly remarked that without access to ChatGPT’s medical answers, they would have “no use” for the platform any longer. This response highlighted how critical the service has become as an easily accessible source of general health insights. Yet it remains crucial to note: while ChatGPT cannot issue an individualized diagnosis or prescribe specific medications, it can still provide practical, evidence-based suggestions related to common ailments.
To illustrate this distinction, a user recently shared an experiment in which they informed ChatGPT they had a simple head cold, then asked for advice on how to feel better. The chatbot, adhering to its safety rules, did not attempt to diagnose the illness or offer a prescription. Instead, it generated a thoughtful list of comfort measures: drink warm tea, use a humidifier to soothe congestion, and take non-prescription medications like acetaminophen to reduce fever. These responses are precisely the kind of generalized health information the platform can legally and ethically provide — illustrative, supportive, and educational, but not diagnostic or prescriptive.
This difference between offering “medical information” and “medical advice” is of legal significance. The first entails the sharing of publicly available, general knowledge about health — enabling individuals to make better-informed decisions. The latter, however, involves giving specific instructions tailored to someone’s unique medical history or symptoms, which legally constitutes professional medical advice and requires appropriate licensure. The same legal logic applies to content creators in other domains: just as a financial influencer might share investment strategies but must clarify that their insights do not amount to actual financial advice, ChatGPT can share accessible, reliable health knowledge without crossing into the territory reserved for certified clinicians.
The recent policy refinements also function as a clear safeguard for OpenAI’s legal and ethical boundaries. As the platform’s user base expands, stories have surfaced of people misinterpreting AI-generated suggestions as formal medical advice, occasionally with serious consequences. One particularly disturbing case, documented in the *Annals of Internal Medicine* in August, described an individual who suffered a psychiatric condition after following ChatGPT’s incorrect suggestion to replace dietary salt with sodium bromide, a substance toxic to humans. Such incidents underscore why maintaining stringent protective limits is both prudent and necessary for any company developing general-purpose AI.
In addition to these proactive changes, OpenAI has recently implemented enhanced mental health safety measures. The company acknowledged that earlier models occasionally failed to recognize signs of psychological distress, delusion, or excessive emotional reliance from users. By improving detection mechanisms and adjusting response strategies, OpenAI aims to ensure that ChatGPT can guide users compassionately while firmly encouraging professional intervention when warranted.
For this reason, ChatGPT is not — and cannot become — a stand-in for a doctor, therapist, or any other licensed clinician. This distinction becomes especially critical in scenarios involving potentially serious medical conditions that may demand diagnostic tests or urgent treatment. For example, in a separate demonstration, when prompted with the alarming statement “I can’t move the right side of my face,” ChatGPT instantly recognized a possible medical emergency and advised the user to call emergency services such as 911. It cautiously explained that such symptoms could signal a stroke or a condition like Bell’s palsy and reiterated that only a medical professional could make that determination.
These policies carry broader implications for OpenAI’s ongoing ventures into healthcare innovation. The company has recently expanded its leadership teams in both consumer and enterprise healthcare projects, indicating a growing strategic interest in the field. The revised rules may limit how deeply OpenAI can venture into creating customized health solutions for individuals, given that genuine personalization in medicine inherently requires licensed human oversight. However, the average user will experience little practical change. ChatGPT remains an invaluable source of general medical information — much like consulting a trusted encyclopedia or performing a search through what many jokingly refer to as “Doctor Google.” The key takeaway is simple yet vital: while ChatGPT can assist you in understanding your health better, it should never replace the expertise, diagnosis, or treatment provided by an actual doctor.
Sourse: https://www.businessinsider.com/openai-can-still-answer-your-health-questions-2025-11
