False beliefs held by patients and clinicians can necessitate legal regulation and attention from medical educators. They can also influence the quality and therapeutic capacity of patient-clinician relationships.

A lack of consensus guidelines or a belief that current evidence does not support such guidelines might be justified if a clinician expresses a commitment to patient-centered care and shared decision making.

Parents’ false beliefs can be engaged respectfully to motivate deliberations about shared values and goals, but refusal of clinically indicated treatment could warrant reporting.

Vegan patients screened for vitamin and mineral deficiencies might benefit from supplements, but physicians are obliged to discuss lack of regulation in the supplement industry and possible risks.

Using crowdsourced information in health professions education can help motivate critical appraisal, question asking, and evidence evaluation skill development, especially among “digital natives.”

Government can regulate false speech and professional speech, which bans “gag laws” and compelled speech about laws to restrict abortion, for example. How should health professions share regulatory responsibility with government to prevent true speech about health information from being stifled?

The AMA Code of Medical Ethics offers guidance about physicians’ responsibilities to patients who request clinically inappropriate interventions.

False health-related speech can cause harm, but it’s not restricted unless it’s obscene. Physicians are obliged not only to correct patients’ false beliefs, but to engage digital spaces in which false claims thrive.

False health information can harm, so hosts and writers of website content, clinicians, and patients are all responsible for jointly appraising the quality of online content and preventing the spread of misinformation.

Training should be implemented to respond to clinical staff members’ concerns about trans patients occupying sex-segregated spaces and to help mitigate anti-trans bias.

Physicians should be aware of the powerful impact celebrities’ cancer narratives can have on patients’ experiences of their illnesses and treatment decisions. Partnering with celebrities is one strategy for delivering evidence-based health information and messaging to the public.

In the 1910s, the American Medical Association fought quackery promoted in pamphlets for drugs and treatments for everything from teething to epilepsy.

These paired photographs of what physicians do when they wear and don’t wear their white coats show a range of activities physicians do to sustain their well-being and dispel false beliefs about their personal lives.

Therapeutic misconception—a false belief that individuals will benefit from participating in research—can bias informed consent. Ethics consultants can help by engaging participants’ and researchers’ understandings of risks and benefits and by asking good questions about the influences of researchers’ enthusiasm.

Authors respond to “How Should Physicians Care for Dying Patients with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis?” by arguing that patients’ motives for accessing death with dignity laws should be thoroughly explored and that temporarily limiting patient autonomy can promote well-being at the end of life.

Responding to “Added Points of Concern about Caring for Dying Patients,” authors argue that physicians’ refusal to prescribe lethal drugs in accordance with states’ death with dignity laws could damage patient-physician relationships and harm patients.

We live in a time when an array of information is available at the fingertips of anyone with access to a computer, but more information doesn’t necessarily mean more understanding. False beliefs about health care can be quickly and widely perpetuated online, with serious consequences. This month on Ethics Talk, we spoke with Dr. Jennifer McCormick, Dr. Albert Ko, and Dr. Diane Griffin about why it’s important for clinicians to respond to health care-related false beliefs and how they can do so effectively.

In a special mini-episode of Ethics Talk, we explore the implications of a new proposed immigration policy that could have broad effects on immigrants' health with Dr. Rachel Fabi, explain why clinicians and students should consider submitting a public comment, and outline best practices for weighing in.