AI can simplify prescriptions, explain medical reports and answer health queries in seconds. But can people distinguish general information from advice that requires a doctor’s judgement?
The second opinion in healthcare is no longer always sought from another doctor. Increasingly, it comes from a search bar, a YouTube video or an AI chatbot. A patient uncertain about a diagnosis can now seek answers at midnight, have a prescription explained in seconds or explore treatment options without stepping outside their home. There is little doubt that this is a significant step forward in democratising health information. It gives people greater access to knowledge and a sense of control over decisions that were once difficult to navigate. However, access to information should not be mistaken for the ability to make informed medical decisions. As AI makes medical guidance increasingly accessible, its limitations are becoming harder to ignore. For India, the next public health priority must therefore go beyond expanding digital access. It must be about building the health literacy people need to interpret information, question its credibility and use it responsibly.
A recent case reported by The New York Times illustrates just how consequential this gap can be. Bowen Wan, a 31-year-old former Amazon software engineer with epilepsy, died following a seizure in February 2026. According to a wrongful-death lawsuit filed by her parents in October, ChatGPT provided her with a schedule to gradually reduce her anti-seizure medication eventually taking the dosage to zero. The lawsuit further alleges that the chatbot encouraged her to keep the changes from her doctors and reassured her when she described symptoms that could have indicated seizures. OpenAI described the situation as heartbreaking and said the model involved was an older version.
The tragedy raises difficult questions about AI safety and accountability. But it also exposes a wider problem that when people increasingly turn to digital platforms for medical guidance, do they know where information ends and medical advice begins?
India’s growing information economy needs a health literacy framework
India has made considerable progress in expanding digital access. According to a June 2026 government data, approximately 85.5% of Indian households own at least one smartphone, while internet connections increased from 25.15 crore in 2014 to 100.29 crore in 2025. This connectivity has created unprecedented opportunities to bring health information closer to people, particularly those who may otherwise struggle to access reliable medical resources.
Yet, access does not automatically translate into understanding. A 2026 study published in Discover Public Health, examining 196 young people aged 16–24 at a tertiary hospital in Varanasi, found that 87.8% searched for health information online. However, only 5.1% actively verified the credibility of the information, while 68.9% did not check its sources. Although this relatively small, hospital-based study cannot represent India’s entire youth population, it highlights an important weakness in the way people engage with digital health content.
The challenge extends beyond online misinformation. A 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis covering 66 Indian studies and 29,873 participants estimated the pooled prevalence of self-medication at 64.4%. The researchers identified familiarity with medicines, perceived minor illnesses, time constraints and financial restrictions among the reasons behind the practice. While this figure must be interpreted in light of considerable differences between the studies, it underscores why understanding medication information and its risks matters.
Health literacy, therefore, cannot be reduced to reading a medical article or recognising a disease. The World Health Organization defines it as the ability to access, understand and use information to promote and maintain good health. It involves evaluating evidence, asking relevant questions, understanding treatment instructions and making informed decisions.
AI literacy must become part of health literacy
Generative AI is changing how people interact with health information. It can translate medical terminology, explain laboratory reports, summarise treatment options and help patients prepare questions before consultations. For people facing language barriers or unfamiliar health systems, these capabilities can be valuable.
However, AI-generated explanations are not individualised clinical assessments. A chatbot may explain what an elevated blood glucose reading generally indicates, but it cannot establish a diagnosis from that number alone. It may describe the purpose of a medication, but that does not make it qualified to recommend changing its dosage. This distinction must become central to public health communication.
People need to understand four things
1) What a medical finding means
2) Whether it applies to their circumstances
3) What decisions require professional supervision
4) Which symptoms warrant timely medical attention.
AI literacy in health should include recognising uncertainty, checking credible sources, protecting personal health information and understanding when to stop searching and consult a qualified professional.
The responsibility cannot rest with patients alone
It would be unfair to place the entire burden of safe information use on individuals. Health organisations, technology companies, public health authorities and communications professionals all have a role in building a more health-literate society.
Hospitals and healthcare providers must make consultations more participatory, encourage patients to ask questions and explain prescriptions, investigations and follow-up instructions in accessible language. Digital health platforms must clearly distinguish general educational information from clinical recommendations and build safeguards around high-risk medical queries.
Public health campaigns must also move beyond awareness generation. Instead of simply telling people to recognise symptoms or follow treatment, communication should explain why certain decisions require medical supervision, how to identify credible information and where to seek help. Crucially, this information must be available in regional languages and formats that account for differences in literacy, age and digital familiarity.
There is also a need to measure health literacy more systematically. A 2025 review, examining 30 studies and 33 health literacy instruments used in India, found that only four studies used instruments originally developed for the Indian population. Developing robust, culturally relevant ways to assess health literacy should be a priority for policymakers and public health researchers.
The next health revolution must be about informed decisions
India has spent years building the infrastructure to democratise health information. Digital platforms, telemedicine, online consultations and now generative AI are making knowledge increasingly accessible. But the true measure of progress must be the number of people who can understand medical answers, question its credibility and make a safe, informed decision.
The objective is not to discourage people from using AI or seeking health information independently. It is to ensure that technology strengthens the relationship between patients and health professionals. We cannot build a healthier India by simply putting more medical information into people’s hands. We must give them the ability to understand what it means, recognise what it cannot tell them and act on it responsibly. The next public health imperative is to utilise access to information wisely.
