软件即医疗器械 "法规:美国可向欧盟传授哪些经验,以更公平地平衡其数字主权?

Anna Fiorentini
{"title":"软件即医疗器械 \"法规:美国可向欧盟传授哪些经验,以更公平地平衡其数字主权?","authors":"Anna Fiorentini","doi":"10.1163/15718093-bja10109","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The AI presence in healthcare (e.g., telemedicine platforms and Software as Medical Devices) is uncontroversial by now. Beyond the Big Tech already for some time large investors in this field, the States, repeatedly accused to be unable keeping pace with the exponential technological development, are growingly called upon to deal with it. Taking the distance from those who perceive the US as a regulatory model to oppose in order to assert the EU digital sovereignty, the present analysis will prove that a glimpse across the Atlantic could only help the EU legislator. With a specific focus on the SaMD regulation, it will be shown how the choices made in the US appear to be grounded on a fair balance between patient and economic operators' rights. Building on it, a new balancing formula needs to be put forward to guide the EU intensive legislative activity for the digital world.</p>","PeriodicalId":43934,"journal":{"name":"EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH LAW","volume":" ","pages":"507-532"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"'Software as Medical Device' Regulation: What the US Can Teach to the EU for a Fairer Balance Towards Its Digital Sovereignty?\",\"authors\":\"Anna Fiorentini\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15718093-bja10109\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The AI presence in healthcare (e.g., telemedicine platforms and Software as Medical Devices) is uncontroversial by now. Beyond the Big Tech already for some time large investors in this field, the States, repeatedly accused to be unable keeping pace with the exponential technological development, are growingly called upon to deal with it. Taking the distance from those who perceive the US as a regulatory model to oppose in order to assert the EU digital sovereignty, the present analysis will prove that a glimpse across the Atlantic could only help the EU legislator. With a specific focus on the SaMD regulation, it will be shown how the choices made in the US appear to be grounded on a fair balance between patient and economic operators' rights. Building on it, a new balancing formula needs to be put forward to guide the EU intensive legislative activity for the digital world.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":43934,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH LAW\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"507-532\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH LAW\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718093-bja10109\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH LAW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718093-bja10109","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人工智能在医疗保健领域的应用(如远程医疗平台和软件即医疗设备)现在已无可争议。除了已经在这一领域投资多年的大型科技公司之外,屡次被指责无法跟上指数级技术发展步伐的国家也越来越多地被要求应对这一问题。有些人认为美国是一种监管模式,应予以反对,以维护欧盟的数字主权,而本分析报告将与这些人保持一定的距离,证明对大西洋彼岸的一瞥只会对欧盟立法者有所帮助。通过对 SaMD 法规的特别关注,我们将看到美国的选择是如何在患者权利和经济运营商权利之间实现公平平衡的。在此基础上,需要提出一个新的平衡公式,以指导欧盟针对数字世界的密集立法活动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
'Software as Medical Device' Regulation: What the US Can Teach to the EU for a Fairer Balance Towards Its Digital Sovereignty?

The AI presence in healthcare (e.g., telemedicine platforms and Software as Medical Devices) is uncontroversial by now. Beyond the Big Tech already for some time large investors in this field, the States, repeatedly accused to be unable keeping pace with the exponential technological development, are growingly called upon to deal with it. Taking the distance from those who perceive the US as a regulatory model to oppose in order to assert the EU digital sovereignty, the present analysis will prove that a glimpse across the Atlantic could only help the EU legislator. With a specific focus on the SaMD regulation, it will be shown how the choices made in the US appear to be grounded on a fair balance between patient and economic operators' rights. Building on it, a new balancing formula needs to be put forward to guide the EU intensive legislative activity for the digital world.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
52
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Jewish Studies (EJJS) is the Journal of the European Association for Jewish Studies (EAJS). Its main purpose is to publish high-quality research articles, essays and shorter contributions on all aspects of Jewish Studies. Submissions are all double blind peer-reviewed. Additionally, EJJS seeks to inform its readers on current developments in Jewish Studies: it carries comprehensive review-essays on specific topics, trends and debated questions, as well as regular book-reviews. A further section carries reports on conferences, symposia, and descriptions of research projects in every area of Jewish Studies.
期刊最新文献
European Court of Justice. An Exploratory Study of Capacity Assessment in Medical Practice in Ireland. Selected Legislature and Jurisprudence. Selected Legislation and Jurisprudence. Collaboration in Healthcare: Implications of Data Sharing for Secondary Use in the European Union.
×
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