Understanding laws about medical and mental health advice/treatment
<p>Can you help me understand which of these are legal and which are illegal in the U.S., and briefly why? (If the answers vary by state, assume state with &quot;medium strictness&quot;, or just answer for the state you are familiar with.)</p>
<p>(A) I write and publish a book called &quot;Cure your brain tumor by eating carrots!&quot; in which I explain in detail how you can (and should) cure your brain tumor with carrots. I state clearly at the start of the book that I have no medical training.</p>
<p>(B) I write and publish a book called &quot;Cure your depression by eating carrots!&quot; in which I explain in detail how you can (and should) cure your depression with carrots. I state clearly at the start of the book that I have no psychological training.</p>
<p>(C) I meet with an individual who has a brain tumor and I advise them to eat carrots to cure it. I state clearly at the start of the session that I have no medical training. They pay me $100 for the session.</p>
<p>(D) I meet with an individual who has depression and I advise them to eat carrots to cure it. I state clearly at the start of the session that I have no psychological training. They pay me $100 for the session.</p>
<p>(E) I meet with an individual who has a brain tumor and I advise them to eat carrots to cure it. I state (truthfully) at the start of the session that I have an MD from an American institution, but that I am not a licensed physician in their state or in any state. They pay me $100 for the session.</p>
<p>(F) I meet with an individual who has depression and I advise them to eat carrots to cure it. I state (truthfully) at the start of the session that I have a masters degree in psychology from an American institution, but that I am not a licensed mental health provider in their state or in any state. They pay me $100 for the session.</p>
<p>(G) I meet online with an individual who has a brain tumor and I advise them to eat carrots to cure it. I state (truthfully) at the start of the session that I have a medical degree from another country (from which I'm video calling) and am licensed to practice medicine in that country, but that I am not a licensed physician in the U.S., in their state or in any state. They pay me $100 for the session.</p>
<p>(H) I meet online with an individual who has depression and I advise them to eat carrots to cure it. I state (truthfully) at the start of the session that I have a masters degree in psychology from another country (from which I'm video calling) and am licensed to practice as a therapist in that country, but that I am not a licensed mental health provider in the U.S., in their state or in any state. They pay me $100 for the session.</p>

<p>The two primary factors that govern the outcome are laws on &quot;unapproved devices&quot; and &quot;practicing without a license&quot;. Carrots are only subject to ordinary food safety regulations in the US, and the outcome would not change by substituting broccoli, mustard, filet mignon, or &quot;lots of water&quot;. Drugs that are introduced on the market have to be approved by the FDA, but legacy foods do not. We are in the realm that requires no FDA approval of carrots. The line, for product-purveyors, is drawn by <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/321" rel="nofollow noreferrer">21 USC 321(g)(1)</a>, and <a href="https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/warning-letters/santhigram-kerala-ayurvedic-co-us-inc-625892-05192022" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a> is an FDA warning letter to an Ayurvedic medical treatment maker / seller.</p>
<p>There are ample law concerning &quot;practice of medicine&quot;, and there is the First Amendment which erects a strong barrier against laws which aim to prohibit people from disseminating an officially-unapproved viewpoint (to simplify matters, I presume – contrary to fact – that no medical authority has endorsed the specific efficacy of carrots). The government cannot punish you for taking approach A or B.</p>
<p>If you have a license to practice medicine (of the relevant kind), you may be subject to state licensing-board sanctions for making unapproved claims (one of the factors that overrides the First Amendment). If you have no license, then the question is whether your activity falls within the realm of &quot;practicing medicine&quot; in the state. In Washington, the line is drawn via <a href="https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=18.71.011" rel="nofollow noreferrer">RCW 18.71.011</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>A person is practicing medicine if he or she does one or more of the
following: (1) Offers or undertakes to diagnose, cure, advise, or
prescribe for any human disease, ailment, injury, infirmity,
deformity, pain or other condition, physical or mental, real or
imaginary, by any means or instrumentality...</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Technically, you cannot advise a person to take an aspirin if they have a headache. However, this law is within the scope of business regulations, so part of the line not directly encoded in that definition (related to the requirement to have a license) is that you are doing this as a business.</p>
<p>A person must have a state license in Washington to be a &quot;common school&quot; (K-12) teacher. Your gym teacher can tell you to eat carrots to cure your depression or whatever, and there is some (miniscule) chance that the teacher will get punished for giving such advice. A person does not have to have a license to be a university professor, therefore telling a student to eat carrots will lead to no government sanctions, though the employer may fire or reassign you, depending on circumstances. The crucial question is not whether you are advocating eating carrots, but what business you are engaged in, whereby in the course of that business you give advice. A person with a medical degree and license who is a greeter at Walmart is not subject to government sanctions for advising &quot;Eat carrots to cure your tumor / depression&quot;.</p>

licensing medical