The ethics of simplifying medical content: Where to draw the line?

We hear it all the time: “This needs to be simpler.” Make it accessible. Plain language, please. Write for a 12-year-old reading level.

And yes – simplification is often necessary, even vital. But there’s a fine line between making a message easier to understand and removing the very nuance that makes it medically accurate and ethically sound.

So how do we walk that line?

Let’s talk about what happens when we simplify responsibly… and what happens when we go too far.

Why simplifying matters (and when it goes wrong)

We’ve all seen it:

A source text filled with passive verbs, jargon, and endless sub-clauses. Even professionals have to re-read it twice. So we roll up our sleeves and start simplifying – shorter sentences, clearer structure, plain-language alternatives. That’s our job.

But sometimes the push to simplify becomes something else. You remove a hedge (“may increase the risk of…”), and suddenly the sentence feels… off. You skip a rare side effect because “it might scare patients.” You translate "no clinically significant findings observed" to "the treatment had no side effects."

The problem? That’s no longer simplification – it’s distortion.

We owe it to readers to tell the truth, even if that truth is complicated.

Clarity and accuracy are both ethical obligations

There’s a common assumption that making medical content simpler always improves it. But clarity and accuracy are both part of ethical communication – and when they conflict, we need to pause.

Oversimplifying can lead to:

• False reassurance – e.g. “This treatment works well for most people” instead of “This treatment has shown benefits in some groups…”

• Misunderstanding risk – skipping rare but serious adverse events to keep things “friendly”

• Misrepresentation of uncertainty – turning open research questions into oversold promises

These choices – whether we make them consciously or not – shape how people understand their options, evaluate risks, and make decisions. They shape trust.

Ask yourself: Where is the line?

Simplification isn’t a switch you flip. It’s a series of micro-decisions. And those decisions depend on context: the audience, the purpose, the document type, and even the phase of a clinical journey.

A few guiding questions can help you stay grounded:

• Am I removing detail to aid understanding – or to make the text shorter?

• Have I preserved key information about risks, limitations, or conditions?

• Would this version still make sense to a healthcare professional reading over the patient’s shoulder?

• If this were my relative reading this, would I be okay with what’s missing?

These aren’t trick questions. They’re prompts that help us make better, more conscious calls.

Real-world examples (we've all been there)

Let’s break this down with some real (and common) scenarios:

EXAMPLE 1: INFORMED CONSENT FORM

Shorter, clearer, and preserves the essential message.

Original: “There is a small but increased risk of serious bleeding associated with the procedure.”

Tempting simplification: “The procedure may cause bleeding.”

Ethical issue: You've lost both the nuance (“small but increased”) and the specific risk type (“serious”). It’s simpler – but dangerously vague.

Better version: “This procedure slightly increases the risk of serious bleeding.”

EXAMPLE 2: PATIENT BROCHURE

Still accessible, but less absolute.

Original: “There were no clinically significant changes in liver function tests.”

Tempting simplification: “The treatment did not affect the liver.”

Ethical issue: We’re assuming too much. “No significant change” ≠ “no effect.”

Better version: “Liver function was monitored, and no major changes were found.” 

EXAMPLE 3: LAY SUMMARY OF A CLINICAL TRIAL

Simple. Honest. Clear.

Original: “The study was not designed to measure long-term effectiveness.”

Tempting simplification: Removed in the simplified version because it “interrupts the flow.”

Ethical issue: Now the reader assumes long-term effects were confirmed – when in fact, they weren’t assessed at all.

Better version: “This study focused on short-term results. Long-term effects were not studied.” 

Practical strategies that help you stay on the right side

If you regularly adapt or translate medical content for patients or non-experts, here are a few tactics that help you simplify responsibly:

• Keep the concept, even if the wording changes. Don’t delete uncertainty – rephrase it.

• Use structure to aid understanding. Bullet points, short paragraphs, subheadings – all make complex information feel lighter without omitting anything.

• Preserve qualifiers that matter. Words like might, rare, most, not always exist for a reason. Don’t flatten them.

• Know your non-negotiables. If removing a term, concept, or risk changes how someone might interpret the content, keep it in.

• Don’t write in isolation. Ask colleagues, reviewers, or even a non-expert contact to read your version. If they “get it” – but also “get it right” – you’re on solid ground.

The next time you’re simplifying a dense sentence, stop for a moment and ask yourself:

Am I making this clearer – or just easier?

That’s where the ethical line lives. And the more we practice finding it, the better we serve the people reading our words.

Simplification is not neutral. It can reveal, but it can also erase. And when it erases too much, we risk crossing from clarity into comfort – and comfort isn’t always what the reader needs. Patients, families, and even healthcare professionals deserve language that is accessible but accurate. Our job is not to shield them from complexity, but to help them navigate it.