The Business of Trust: Doctors, Marketing, and Ethic

A few days ago, I worked with a private clinic on one of the requirements before opening its doors: producing a promotional video introducing the clinic and the services it offers.

It sounded straightforward. But while discussing scripts, camera angles, and key messages, I found myself thinking less about the video itself and more about a question that medicine has never answered comfortably !!!

Where is the line between informing patients and marketing to them?

>>> Medicine has changed!!!

Not long ago, physicians rarely thought about branding, social media, or personal visibility. Reputation was built slowly through referrals, colleagues, and years of clinical work. Today, patients often meet their doctor online before they ever meet them in the clinic. They watch videos, read posts, compare profiles, and sometimes choose a physician based on a one-minute clip on Instagram or TikTok…

Whether we like it or not, marketing has become part of healthcare.

The question is no longer whether doctors should market themselves. It is how they should do it!

I don’t believe all marketing is unethical. In fact, patients benefit from knowing where services are available, what expertise a physician has, or which procedures can now be performed locally instead of requiring travel. Good communication improves access to care. It may even reduce delays in diagnosis by encouraging patients to seek medical attention earlier.

Health education also has enormous value. Many physicians now produce excellent educational content that explains heart attacks, diabetes, hypertension, or cancer in language patients can actually understand. That should be encouraged.

But there is another side that deserves attention. Sometimes education slowly turns into promotion without anyone explicitly saying so.

A video explaining robotic surgery may gradually become a video suggesting that robotic surgery is always the best option. A discussion about coronary CT may subtly imply that everyone should have one. A physician may sincerely believe they are educating while unconsciously promoting the procedure they perform every day.

This is probably where the ethical questions begin!!

Every doctor develops preferences. We naturally gain confidence in techniques we use frequently. We become familiar with certain devices, medications, or technologies. That is normal. Experience shapes opinion.

The difficulty arises when financial incentives, institutional goals, or industry relationships begin to influence how that opinion is presented to the public.

The conflict is not always obvious.

A hospital wants to promote its new structural heart program. A physician appears in the campaign because they genuinely believe in the service. A company sponsors educational events introducing a new device. The data may be sound, the intentions honest, and the technology genuinely useful.

Yet patients rarely see these layers. They simply see a trusted doctor speaking with confidence.

That confidence carries weight. Perhaps more weight than we sometimes appreciate.

Social media has complicated things even further.

Platforms reward certainty, simplicity, and short messages. Medicine, on the other hand, is full of uncertainty. Real consultations involve probabilities, alternative options, and discussions about risk. None of that fits comfortably into a 60-second video.So the temptation exists to simplify a little too much.

Or to present a treatment as universally appropriate when it is actually suitable for a carefully selected group of patients.

Another trend I have noticed is the growing overlap between education and personal branding.

Some physicians have become exceptional communicators. Their content genuinely helps people understand disease and navigate the healthcare system. Others appear to be building an online identity where education becomes secondary to visibility.

There is nothing inherently wrong with wanting professional recognition. Physicians have always published research, delivered lectures, and built reputations within their specialties.

Social media is simply another platform.

What matters is the motivation behind the message. Is the primary goal to educate?

To inform patients about available services? To attract more patients? To promote a hospital?

To increase procedure volume? Often, the answer is probably a mixture of all of these.

Perhaps that is why drawing a clear ethical line is so difficult.

I also wonder whether we judge doctors differently from other professions. Lawyers advertise. Architects advertise. Universities advertise. Hospitals advertise. Why should physicians be completely absent from public communication?

Maybe the issue is not advertising itself. Maybe it is that medicine depends on trust more than almost any other profession.

Patients cannot easily verify our recommendations. They trust that our advice is based on evidence rather than personal benefit. Once that trust is questioned, the profession loses something far more valuable than followers or market share.

For me, one simple question helps.

If I removed my name, my hospital’s logo, and any commercial interest from a piece of content, would it still educate the patient?

If the answer is yes, then it is probably education. If the answer is no, then perhaps it is marketing wearing the clothes of education.

The two are not enemies. In many situations they can coexist responsibly. But they should never become indistinguishable.

Medicine has always evolved alongside society. Digital communication is simply the latest chapter. Rather than resisting it, perhaps we should spend more time discussing how to use it without compromising the values that brought most of us into medicine in the first place.

The challenge is not whether doctors should have a voice online. The challenge is making sure that voice continues to serve patients before it serves ourselves.