Skip to main content
Log in

Exploring the Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of ChatGPT in Urology

  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript


Purpose of the Review

ChatGPT is programmed to generate responses based on pattern recognition. With this vast popularity and exponential growth, the question arises of moral issues, security and legitimacy. In this review article, we aim to analyze the ethical and legal implications of using ChatGPT in Urology and explore potential solutions addressing these concerns.

Recent Findings

There are many potential applications of ChatGPT in urology, and the extent to which it might improve healthcare may cause a profound shift in the way we deliver our services to patients and the overall healthcare system. This encompasses diagnosis and treatment planning, clinical workflow, patient education, augmenting consultations, and urological research. The ethical and legal considerations include patient autonomy and informed consent, privacy and confidentiality, bias and fairness, human oversight and accountability, trust and transparency, liability and malpractice, intellectual property rights, and regulatory framework.


The application of ChatGPT in urology has shown great potential to improve patient care and assist urologists in various aspects of clinical practice, research, and education. Complying with data security and privacy regulations, and ensuring human oversight and accountability are some potential solutions to these legal and ethical concerns. Overall, the benefits and risks of using ChatGPT in urology must be weighed carefully, and a cautious approach must be taken to ensure that its use aligns with human values and advances patient care ethically and responsibly.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. Radford A, et al. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training. 2018.

  2. Biswas SS. Role of chat gpt in public health. Ann Biomed Eng. 2023;1–2.

  3. Gabrielson AT, Odisho AY, Canes D. Harnessing generative artificial intelligence to improve efficiency among urologists: Welcome ChatGPT. Wolters Kluwer Philadelphia, PA. 2023;827–829.

  4. Sallam M, et al. ChatGPT output regarding compulsory vaccination and COVID-19 vaccine conspiracy: a descriptive study at the outset of a paradigm shift in online search for information. Cureus. 2023;15(2).

  5. Shen Y, et al. ChatGPT and other large language models are double-edged swords. Radiol Soc North Am. 2023;e230163.

  6. Zhu L, Mou W, Chen R. Can the ChatGPT and other large language models with internet-connected database solve the questions and concerns of patient with prostate cancer and help democratize medical knowledge? J Transl Med. 2023;21(1):1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Li J, et al. ChatGPT in healthcare: a taxonomy and systematic review. medRxiv. 2023; 2023–03.

  8. Snoswell CL, et al. Artificial intelligence: augmenting telehealth with large language models. J Telemed Telecare, 2023;1357633X231169055.

  9. Dahmen J, et al. Artificial intelligence bot ChatGPT in medical research: the potential game changer as a double-edged sword. Springer. 2023;1–3.

  10. Homolak J. Opportunities and risks of ChatGPT in medicine, science, and academic publishing: a modern Promethean dilemma. Croat Med J. 2023;64(1):1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Liebrenz M, et al. Generating scholarly content with ChatGPT: ethical challenges for medical publishing. The Lancet Digital Health. 2023;5(3):e105–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Smith R. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med. 2006;99(4):178–82.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Mavrogenis AF, Quaile A, Scarlat MM. The good, the bad and the rude peer-review. Springer. 2020;413–415.

  14. Margalida A, Colomer MÀ. Improving the peer-review process and editorial quality: key errors escaping the review and editorial process in top scientific journals. PeerJ. 2016;4: e1670.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Kostick-Quenet KM, Gerke S. AI in the hands of imperfect users. npj Digital Med. 2022;5(1):197.

  16. (2019)., E.g.f.t.A.S.E.s.d.f. and a.D. [WWW. Available from:

  17. Biswas S. ChatGPT and the future of medical writing. Radiol Soc North Am. 2023;e223312.

  18. Stokel-Walker C. ChatGPT listed as author on research papers: many scientists disapprove. Nature. 2023;613(7945):620–1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ethical guidelines for application of Artificial Intelligence in Biomedical Research and Healthcare 2023, I.C.o.M. Research Editor. Indian Counc Med Res. 2023.

  20. • Naik N, et al. Legal and ethical consideration in artificial intelligence in healthcare: who takes responsibility? Front Surg. 2022;266. This review article addresses issues regarding privacy, protection and algorithmic transparency with the use of Artificial Intelligence.

  21. • de Hond AA, et al. Guidelines and quality criteria for artificial intelligence-based prediction models in healthcare: a scoping review. NPJ Digital Med. 2022;5(1):2. In this scoping review the authors look at AI-based prediction model (AIMP) using a 6-phase approach.

  22. Krarup T, Horst M. European artificial intelligence policy as digital single market making. Big Data & Society. 2023 Jan;10(1):20539517231153811

  23. Helberger N, Diakopoulos N. ChatGPT and the AI Act. Internet Policy Rev. 2023;12(1).

  24. Stokel-Walker C, Van Noorden R. What ChatGPT and generative AI mean for science. Nature. 2023;614(7947):214–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. De Angelis L, et al. ChatGPT and the rise of large language models: the new AI-driven infodemic threat in public health. Front Public Health. 2023;11:1567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Zielinski C, et al. Chatbots, ChatGPT, and Scholarly Manuscripts-WAME recommendations on ChatGPT and Chatbots in relation to Scholarly Publications. Afro-Egyptian Journal of Infectious and Endemic Diseases. 2023;13(1):75–9.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Sallam M. ChatGPT utility in healthcare education, research, and practice: systematic review on the promising perspectives and valid concerns. in Healthcare. 2023. MDPI.

  28. Marchandot B, et al. ChatGPT: the next frontier in academic writing for cardiologists or a pandora’s box of ethical dilemmas. Eur Heart J Open. 2023;3(2):oead007.

  29. Polonsky MJ, Rotman JD. Should Artificial Intelligent Agents be Your Co-author? Arguments in Favour, Informed by ChatGPT. SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, England. 2023;14413582231167882.

  30. Ahn C. Exploring ChatGPT for information of cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Resuscitation. 2023;185.

  31. Hallsworth JE, et al. Scientific novelty beyond the experiment. Microbial Biotechnol. 2023.

  32. Kitamura FC. ChatGPT is shaping the future of medical writing but still requires human judgment. Radiol Soc North Am. 2023;e230171.

  33. Lin Z. Why and how to embrace AI such as ChatGPT in your academic life. 2023.

  34. Fijačko N, et al. Can ChatGPT pass the life support exams without entering the American heart association course? Resuscitation. 2023;185.

  35. • Kung T, et al. Performance of ChatGPT on USMLE: Potential for AI-assisted medical education using large language models. PLOS Digit Health. 2023;2(2): e0000198. The results of this paper suggest that large language models could assist with medical education and clinical decision-making.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references


The authors wish to highlight that Professor Bhaskar Somani is an endourology section editor for Current Urology Reports.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



K.A. - Wrote the manuscript N.N. - Prepared the figures and edited the manuscript B.M.Z.H. - Edited the manuscript S.K.R. - Edited the manuscript B.K.S. - Conceptualised tne manuscript and edited the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bhaskar K. Somani.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

All other authors declare no competing interests.

Consent of Publication

We confirm that this work has not been published or submitted for publication elsewhere.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

All reported studies/experiments with human or animal subjects performed by the authors have been previously published and complied with all applicable ethical standards (including the Helsinki declaration and its amendments, institutional/national research committee standards, and international/national/institutional guidelines). All authors have reviewed and approved the submitted manuscript.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Adhikari, K., Naik, N., Hameed, B. et al. Exploring the Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of ChatGPT in Urology. Curr Urol Rep 25, 1–8 (2024).

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: