I am not a healthcare professional, though I do talk to medical professionals socially, about their professions, very frequently, for what it's worth.
I am, however, a veteran Stack Exchange small-community founder, moderator, and active community member, having put in a combined total of over five years in those roles at Mi Yodeya (Judaism.StackExchange).
At Mi Yodeya, we have a bright-line rule saying that Mi Yodeya does not "offer personal guidance in response to practical questions about Jewish law or attitudes, as a rabbi would," which we back up by closing or editing-to-generalize any question that seeks such advice. We have this rule plastered everywhere on the site we could where it's relevant.
More than once, I've seen point-objections along the lines of "I know we have a rule against giving personal advice, but I think this case ought to be an exception, because this guy clearly needs help." Well, it's a good thing no one had to make that judgement call, because this guy who clearly needs help is also more likely than most to be hurt by following wrong or wrong-for-him advice. Like it or not, the first, best-written, or most likable advice he gets on this site may be wrong, and may remain up and wrong long enough to harm the guy before Stack Exchange peer review fixes the problem. And wrong-for-him is always a possibility on a forum designed for public, atomic, Q&A and not personal dialogue.
But the hearts of good people who like to help others are naturally pulled toward helping the guy who really needs help. The way we prevent our hearts from leading us to reach out inappropriately and tell the guy what to do is that we tie ourselves to the mast before we meet the guy. The way to do that is with a clear rule, clearly documented, and universally implemented.
If healthcare is also a field in which personal advice can only be competently offered by someone who's able to investigate the individual case in detail, if healthcare is also a field in which the consequences of following wrong or wrong-for-you advice could be severe*, and if healthcare professionals also have a tendency to want to help people who need help, then I recommend that you adopt a similar bright-line rule here, and close any question that seeks personal advice.
If your policy is to only close advice-seeking questions that are "dangerous" or "serious," as appears to be suggested here, then every advice-seeking question is potentially going to lead to a meta-discussion about whether it qualifies as "dangerous" or "serious." And while you're arguing about that, someone who's here for content - not meta - is going to go ahead and answer the question. Also, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect that there are diagnostic questions that you'd identify as serious situations if the patient was in front of you (due, say, to some symptom that's obvious and obviously relevant to the trained eye, but not to the untrained one), that present as completely innocuous when written up by the patient.
* Observant Jews believe this to be the case regarding observance of Judaism. That this is the case for health is probably clear to everyone here.