The use of artificial intelligence in healthcare could create a legally complex blame game when it comes to establishing liability for medical failings, experts have warned.
The development of AI for clinical use has boomed, with researchers creating a host of tools, from algorithms to help interpret scans to systems that can aid with diagnoses. AI is also being developed to help manage hospitals, from optimising bed capacity to tackling supply chains.
But while experts say the technology could bring myriad benefits for healthcare, they say there is also cause for concern, from a lack of testing of the effectiveness of AI tools to questions over who is responsible should a patient have a negative outcome.
Prof Derek Angus, of the University of Pittsburgh, said: “There’s definitely going to be instances where there’s the perception that something went wrong and people will look around to blame someone.”
The Jama summit on Artificial Intelligence, hosted last year by the Journal of the American Medical Association, brought together a panoply of experts including clinicians, technology companies, regulatory bodies, insurers, ethicists, lawyers and economists.
The resulting report, of which Angus is first author, not only looks at the nature of AI tools and the areas of healthcare where they are being used, but also examines the challenges they present, including legal concerns.
Prof Glenn Cohen from Harvard law school, a co-author of the report, said patients could face difficulties showing fault in the use or design of an artificial intelligence product. There could be barriers to gaining information about its inner workings, while it could also be challenging to propose a reasonable alternative design for the product or prove a poor outcome was caused by the AI system.
He said: “The interplay between the parties may also present challenges for bringing a lawsuit – they may point to one another as the party at fault, and they may have existing agreement contractually reallocating liability or have indemnification lawsuits.”
Prof Michelle Mello, another author of the report, from Stanford law school, said courts were well equipped to resolve legal issues. “The problem is that it takes time and will involve inconsistencies in the early days, and this uncertainty elevates costs for everyone in the AI innovation and adoption ecosystem,” she said.
The report also raises concerns about how AI tools are evaluated, noting many are outside the oversight of regulators such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Angus said: “For clinicians, effectiveness usually means improved health outcomes, but there’s no guarantee that the regulatory authority will require proof [of that]. Then once it’s out, AI tools can be deployed in so many unpredictable ways in different clinical settings, with different kinds of patients, by users who are of different levels of skills. There is very little guarantee that what seems to be a good idea in the…
Source link
Disclaimer
We strive to uphold the highest ethical standards in all of our reporting and coverage. We blogs.grocliq.com want to be transparent with our readers about any potential conflicts of interest that may arise in our work. It’s possible that some of the investors we feature may have connections to other businesses, including competitors or companies we write about. However, we want to assure our readers that this will not have any impact on the integrity or impartiality of our reporting. We are committed to delivering accurate, unbiased news and information to our audience, and we will continue to uphold our ethics and principles in all of our work. Thank you for your trust and support.
Website Upgradation is going on for any glitch kindly connect at [email protected]
