The possibility of AI-induced medical manslaughter: Unexplainable decisions, epistemic vices, and a new dimension of moral luck

Q2 Social Sciences Medical Law International Pub Date : 2023-08-17 DOI:10.1177/09685332231193944
Benjamin Bartlett
{"title":"The possibility of AI-induced medical manslaughter: Unexplainable decisions, epistemic vices, and a new dimension of moral luck","authors":"Benjamin Bartlett","doi":"10.1177/09685332231193944","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in healthcare provides a compelling case for a re-examination of ‘gross negligence’ as the basis for criminal liability. AI is a smart agency, often using self-learning architectures, with the capacity to make autonomous decisions. Healthcare practitioners (HCPs) will remain responsible for validating AI recommendations but will have to contend with challenges such as automation bias, the unexplainable nature of AI decisions, and an epistemic dilemma when clinicians and systems disagree. AI decisions are the result of long chains of sociotechnical complexity with the capacity for undetectable errors to be baked into systems, which introduces a new dimension of moral luck. The ‘advisory’ nature of AI decisions constructs a legal fiction, which may leave HCPs unjustly exposed to the legal and moral consequences when systems fail. On balance, these novel challenges point towards a legal test of subjective recklessness as the better option: it is practically necessary; falls within the historic range of the offence; and offers clarity, coherence, and a welcome reconnection with ethics.","PeriodicalId":39602,"journal":{"name":"Medical Law International","volume":"23 1","pages":"241 - 270"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Law International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09685332231193944","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in healthcare provides a compelling case for a re-examination of ‘gross negligence’ as the basis for criminal liability. AI is a smart agency, often using self-learning architectures, with the capacity to make autonomous decisions. Healthcare practitioners (HCPs) will remain responsible for validating AI recommendations but will have to contend with challenges such as automation bias, the unexplainable nature of AI decisions, and an epistemic dilemma when clinicians and systems disagree. AI decisions are the result of long chains of sociotechnical complexity with the capacity for undetectable errors to be baked into systems, which introduces a new dimension of moral luck. The ‘advisory’ nature of AI decisions constructs a legal fiction, which may leave HCPs unjustly exposed to the legal and moral consequences when systems fail. On balance, these novel challenges point towards a legal test of subjective recklessness as the better option: it is practically necessary; falls within the historic range of the offence; and offers clarity, coherence, and a welcome reconnection with ethics.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
人工智能导致医疗过失杀人的可能性:无法解释的决定,认知上的恶习,以及道德运气的新维度
人工智能系统在医疗保健中的使用为重新审查“重大过失”作为刑事责任的依据提供了一个令人信服的案例。人工智能是一个智能机构,通常使用自学习架构,具有自主决策的能力。医疗从业者(HCP)将继续负责验证人工智能建议,但必须应对自动化偏见、人工智能决策的不可解释性以及临床医生和系统不一致时的认知困境等挑战。人工智能决策是社会技术复杂性的长链的结果,具有将无法检测的错误烘焙到系统中的能力,这引入了道德运气的新维度。人工智能决策的“咨询”性质构成了一种法律虚构,当系统出现故障时,HCP可能会不公正地面临法律和道德后果。总的来说,这些新颖的挑战指向对主观鲁莽的法律测试,认为这是更好的选择:这在实践中是必要的;属于犯罪的历史范围;并提供了清晰、一致性,以及与伦理的重新连接。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Law International
Medical Law International Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: The scope includes: Clinical Negligence. Health Matters Affecting Civil Liberties. Forensic Medicine. Determination of Death. Organ and Tissue Transplantation. End of Life Decisions. Legal and Ethical Issues in Medical Treatment. Confidentiality. Access to Medical Records. Medical Complaints Procedures. Professional Discipline. Employment Law and Legal Issues within NHS. Resource Allocation in Health Care. Mental Health Law. Misuse of Drugs. Legal and Ethical Issues concerning Human Reproduction. Therapeutic Products. Medical Research. Cloning. Gene Therapy. Genetic Testing and Screening. And Related Topics.
期刊最新文献
Challenges for the legislation enabling egg donation in Switzerland. Book review: Not What the Bus Promised: Health Governance After Brexit Accessing third-party research databases for criminal investigations: Enhancing legal protections and safeguarding public interests Book review: The Disability Bioethics Reader Book review: The Right to Be Protected From Committing Suicide
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1