The boundary is educational value versus personal advertising
Articles 17 and 18 of Greece’s Code of Medical Ethics set the relevant professional boundary. Article 17 prohibits personal advertising by doctors while allowing public information on medical matters by specialists when it is evidence-based and does not conceal an advertising purpose. Article 18 requires online information to be accurate, objective, understandable and neither misleading nor comparative.
For production, that means the communication objective should be a real patient question: what a procedure involves, how to prepare, which warning signs require assessment, how a service pathway works or which claims need clarification. ‘Make the doctor look like the best choice’ is not an educational objective and should not be converted into one through softer wording.
Create a claim map before writing the final script
Every material clinical statement should connect to an approved source and a named reviewer. Separate stable background information from statements that depend on patient factors, evolving evidence or individual assessment. Where certainty is inappropriate, the language must reflect that uncertainty rather than hide it.
The source list is not decorative. It lets the clinician inspect the exact claim, the producer control on-screen text and the team know when an asset needs review or retirement. AI-generated text cannot serve as the source of clinical truth.
- Claim: the exact clinical or process statement made in speech or text.
- Source: the guideline, professional reference or client-approved evidence supporting it.
- Reviewer: the responsible healthcare professional approving the statement and context.
- Version: the exact script and final export that received approval.
- Review trigger: the date, guidance change or service change that requires reassessment.
Reject formats that manufacture superiority, urgency or outcomes
Production choices can become claims even without explicit words. Triumphant before-and-after editing, staged patient emotion, selective statistics, fear-based hooks or a headline such as ‘the leading specialist’ can create a misleading impression. Real testimonials and patient stories introduce separate consent, privacy, evidence and professional-ethics questions; they should never be treated as a routine content format.
A responsible alternative is service orientation: explain who the service is for, what a consultation can and cannot determine, how preparation works and which professional review happens before a decision. This builds useful trust without manufacturing certainty.
Keep patient data outside the marketing production flow
The safest default is that identifiable patient information, scans, case notes and recordings do not enter external creative or generative systems. If a legitimate clinical communication project requires patient material, it needs a separate lawful, secure and documented process with professional advice—not an informal upload to the production workflow.
The production team should work with approved, non-identifiable references wherever possible. Access should be limited, file responsibilities stated and the delivery package cleaned of unnecessary source material.
Approval belongs to the responsible healthcare professional
A producer can maintain the claim ledger, highlight ambiguity and enforce version control. The producer cannot provide medical approval. A named healthcare professional must approve the sources, final script, visual implications, captions, translations and exact publication export.
Multilingual work needs clinical and linguistic review in each language. Translation does not preserve medical nuance automatically, and approval of the Greek script is not approval of the English version.