Why courts can criminalize medical advice — even when clients provide consent
To most people, personal health decisions feel like protected private matters. Under California Business and Professions Code § 2052, the state asserts total jurisdiction over any act that constitutes "treating the sick." This principle is drawing attention following the 2025 sentencing of Robert O. Young to five years and eight months in prison. The decision does not determine the scientific validity of alkaline diets or the personal intent of those seeking alternative care.
Legal Definition: Unlicensed Practice of Medicine
Pursuant to Cal. B&PC § 2052, the unlicensed practice of medicine occurs when an individual diagnoses, treats, or prescribes for any physical or mental condition without a state-issued certificate. This felony offense applies regardless of patient consent, the use of "natural" substances, or the absence of physical harm.
What You Need to Know
The practice of medicine is governed by state licensing boards and criminal statutes. Once a procedural trigger occurs—such as administering an IV—information regarding the practitioner's lack of credentials becomes a central legal liability. Personal preference or reputational concern generally does not control the release of these findings or the filing of criminal charges.
What the law does not protect
-
The use of purchased or unaccredited degrees to justify clinical medical claims.
-
Private agreements or waivers signed by patients seeking treatment from unlicensed practitioners.
-
Claims that First Amendment "educational" rights permit the physical administration of non-regulated substances.
Explain the Law: The Process of Regulation
How the Process Begins
Titles do not grant authority. Labels cannot hide clinical intent. While the First Amendment protects the publication of dietary theories, California B&PC § 2052 draws a hard line at the point where an author begins administering intravenous substances or diagnosing physical ailments. In practice, the state does not need to prove a specific intent to harm, only the intent to practice without a valid license.
The Statutory Divide
Courts generally prioritize public safety over the individual’s right to offer unorthodox health services. To determine where a provider stands, the law compares activities against the "Safe Harbor" provisions of CA SB 577.
| Feature | Educational Health Guidance (Permissible) | Regulated Medical Practice (Prohibited) |
| Primary Goal | Habit change and lifestyle optimization. | Diagnosis and treatment of disease. |
| Terminology | Uses "assess," "goals," and "clients." | Uses "diagnose," "cure," and "patients." |
| Legal Basis | Safe harbor under CA SB 577. | Cal. B&PC § 2052 (Medical Practice Act). |
| Authority | Relies on publicly vetted info (CDC/FDA). | Exercises independent clinical judgment. |
| Treatment | Recommends general dietary habits. | Administers IVs or specific protocols. |
Who Controls the Authority
State legislatures grant exclusive power to medical boards to define the scope of safe practice. Recent 2025 federal rulings, such as those upholding Cal. B&PC § 2054, affirm that only licensed MDs and DOs may use the title “Doctor” or “Dr.” in clinical or advertising contexts. This prevents patient confusion even when the individual holds a legitimate non-medical doctorate.
Where Limits Exist
The law distinguishes between general health education and specific medical intervention. While an author can publish books about alkalinity, they cannot legally administer infusions or direct clinical care. Discretion applies to how prosecutors charge these cases, but the "Safe Harbor" dissolves the moment a disease claim is made or physical medical procedures are performed.
Consequence Anchor
This ruling reinforces the state’s role as the final arbiter of medical professional standards. It forces a strategic shift for alternative wellness providers to clarify they do not provide medical advice. Pressure increases on unaccredited institutions that sell degrees used to bolster professional credibility. This matters because it defines the boundary between free speech and regulated professional conduct.
Procedure ≠ Outcome
This is a procedural summary of established legal standards and the 2025 sentencing results. It does not predict the outcome of future appeals, predict results of unrelated alternative health practices, or imply wrongdoing in non-clinical wellness industries.
Why This Feels Unfair (But Is Legal)
The strategic irony lies in the "Consent Defense." Defendants often argue that terminal patients chose alternative care as a matter of liberty, yet the law treats medical licensing as a non-waivable public protection. This means a victim cannot legally "consent" to a crime committed against themselves, as the state views the license as the ultimate shield for the vulnerable.
What This Means for Everyone Else
For business owners in the wellness space, this highlights the extreme risk of using medical terminology in marketing. Litigants should note that "natural" labels offer no protection against charges of practicing medicine without a license. Ordinary people must verify the credentials of any provider offering treatments for serious chronic illnesses via official state medical board databases.
FAQ
Can someone be arrested if the patient says they wanted the treatment?
Yes, because medical licensing laws are designed to protect the public interest rather than individual contracts. Consent is not a valid legal defense for practicing medicine without a license.
Why can this happen at all?
The state has a "police power" to regulate professions that impact public health and safety. This allows the government to set strict barriers to entry for anyone claiming to treat disease.
Does this mean all "health coaches" are in trouble?
No, as long as they avoid diagnosing specific ailments or prescribing clinical treatments. Liability usually arises when a coach crosses the line into treating serious medical conditions or using unauthorized titles.
Can a PhD be used as a medical title?
Under Cal. B&PC § 2054, using "Dr." in a clinical or health-related advertisement is restricted to licensed physicians. Even with a legitimate degree, using the title to imply medical authority can lead to criminal charges or civil penalties.
How was Robert O. Young sentenced in 2025?
He was sentenced to five years and eight months in prison for felony counts including practicing medicine without a license and elder abuse. The court found he repeatedly ignored previous convictions while treating terminally ill patients.
