In public health, how we communicate is just as important as what we communicate. Government and public health organisations have a critical role to play in delivering clear, evidence-based and trustworthy information – helping to counter health myths and misinformation that can distort public understanding.
At the same time, a growing number of wellness brands and commercial companies are seeking to influence health choices, often without the same ethical obligations or commitment to evidence. These for-profit entities are coming under increasing scrutiny for how they frame health messages, especially when profit is prioritised over public wellbeing.
In today’s fast-moving communication landscape – shaped by real-time data, polarised opinions, and shifting public expectations – health communicators face an important question: are we doing this right?
Beyond just messaging
Ethical communication is about more than pushing out messages. It’s grounded in respect for individual autonomy, equity, transparency and trust – principles that protect both the public and the integrity of policy.
The Australian Health Protection Principal Committee’s ethical framework, developed during the COVID-19 pandemic, remains highly relevant. Even outside a crisis, communicators must weigh the need to simplify messages against the risk of oversimplifying evolving science or policy.
People remember being told something is “safe and effective”– but they also remember when the message changes. Without clear, ongoing communication, that shift can erode trust and cause confusion.
Misinformation, trust and the digital age
Misinformation – whether accidental or deliberate – remains one of the biggest threats to ethical communication. The Australian Government’s recent push to regulate platforms through the Misinformation and Disinformation Bill sparked debate about how to strike the right balance between reducing harm and protecting freedom of expression.
For communications professionals, this underscores the importance of consistency and credibility. It’s not just about correcting falsehoods – it’s about being transparent about who is behind and funding the message, clearly citing sources, acknowledging uncertainty, and fostering two-way dialogue – particularly with communities that have historically experienced health inequities.
Australia has recently seen a wave of digital health marketing that blurs ethical lines – particularly around weight‑loss treatments. These ads often promote “modern medical weight treatments” that strongly imply the use of prescription medicines such as semaglutide (Ozempic) or tirzepatide (Mounjaro). While consumer advertising of prescription-only drugs is illegal, these campaigns skirt the rules by using vague language and positioning themselves as medical advice, rather than product promotion. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has raised serious concerns, warning that such ads may breach advertising regulations – especially when targeting vulnerable audiences on social media or public transport.
Consent in communications materials
Informed consent is a cornerstone of ethical practice in health, yet it remains an area where communication often falls short. Consent forms are still too often written in legal jargon, handed over without explanation, and assumed to be understood. With only 40% of Australian adults able to comprehend standard health information materials – meaning 60% may not be equipped to make genuinely informed choices about their health or the care they receive – it’s vital that communication is clear, accessible and respectful.
That means using plain language, checking for understanding and recognising that consent is an ongoing process.
(Side note: Whether Fenton is managing photo shoots or conducting personal story interviews, we always take the time to explain how a person’s image and information will be used, so they fully understand what they’re agreeing to.)
Collective good vs individual rights
One of the most complex ethical tensions in health communication is balancing the needs of the community with the rights of the individual. During the COVID-19 pandemic, this tension was evident in lockdowns, restrictions on movement, mask mandates and contact tracing. But similar challenges are now surfacing in more routine contexts.
Take the draft NSW Health social media policy, which sought to limit what frontline workers could say online. Health unions warned it risked silencing professionals who raise legitimate concerns about patient safety and care.
Here, the ethical question isn’t just whether the policy is lawful – it’s whether it fosters or undermines trust and transparency. When people feel heard, respected and informed, communication becomes more than a tool. It becomes a relationship and embodiment of the democratic principle of freedom of speech.
Embedding ethics into everyday practice
Ethical communication needs to be built in from the start, not added at the end. That means thinking critically about message design, delivery and decision-making – especially when principles like autonomy, equity and effectiveness come into tension.
Organisations such as the Australian Health Promotion Association offer helpful frameworks, and health services including WA Country Health provide structured guidance for navigating ethical health promotion practice decisions.
In an era of rapidly shifting information, digital disruption and heightened scrutiny, ethical health communication isn’t a ‘nice to have.’ It’s essential to building public trust and delivering lasting impact.
By John Fulcher
Sources
Australian Health Promotion Association – Ethical Guidelines for Health Promotion Practice
Australian Health Protection Principal Committee Ethical Framework
Canberra Health Literacy Hub – Australian adults health literacy
Therapeutic Goods Association – Guidance on advertising a health service
Western Australia Country Health Service – Ethical Decision Making Framework