I was answering for hallucinations, not really for translation. Re-reading your initial post I do agree with what you are saying (i.e. you are explaining why OpenAI is looking to avoid a PR nightmare). What I meant to express is that I would personally trust doctors to use these tools as best they can to provide care.
"what you see is all there is." it's generally much easier to verify something you've been made aware of than it is to know of it in the first place (and still verify it.)
The irony is that licensed interpreters / translators usually perform worse than AI.
Only the liability shifts from OpenAI to them.
Furthermore, where the alternative to a licensed professional was nothing, or a random untrained person or a weak professional, then it's harming the user on the pretext of protecting him.
-> You are in China, you go to emergency, nobody speaks your language
Move hands ? DeepSeek is better than using hands, even Baidu Translate, ChatGPT or whatever you find.
Other solutions are theoretically nice on paper but almost delusional.
An imperfect solution is better than no solution.
==
Similarly, a deaf-person is theorically better with a certified interpreter that can talk with the hands, but they may prefer voice-recognition software or AI tools.
(or... talking with hands is more confusing and annoying or less understandable for them).
Of course ChatGPT transcription can have issues, but that's the difference between the real-world and Silicon Valley's disconnected lawyers world.
==
If ChatGPT says: "sorry I won't be able, please go to see a licensed interpreter, good luck!" then it's just OpenAI trying to save their asses, at your risk/expense.
If you have a choice, you can make the choice, and you can double-check what is said. In other cases, you have no choice, nothing to check, only problems but no hints of solutions.
When I registered with my GP in the UK, they asked me whether I would need an interpreter and what language. They then provide professional interpreters.