The right to a second opinion on Artificial Intelligence diagnosis—Remedying the inadequacy of a risk-based regulation
In this paper, we argue that patients who are subjects of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-supported diagnosis and treatment planning should have a right to a second opinion, but also that this right should not necessarily be construed as a right to a physician opinion. The right to a second opinion cou...
| Auteurs: | ; |
|---|---|
| Type de support: | Électronique Article |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | En cours de chargement...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publié: |
Wiley-Blackwell
2023
|
| Dans: |
Bioethics
Année: 2023, Volume: 37, Numéro: 3, Pages: 303-311 |
| RelBib Classification: | NCH Éthique médicale NCJ Science et éthique XA Droit |
| Sujets non-standardisés: | B
AI regulation
B AI rights B Artificial Intelligence B second opinion B AI risks |
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Résumé: | In this paper, we argue that patients who are subjects of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-supported diagnosis and treatment planning should have a right to a second opinion, but also that this right should not necessarily be construed as a right to a physician opinion. The right to a second opinion could potentially be satisfied by another independent AI system. Our considerations on the right to second opinion are embedded in the wider debate on different approaches to the regulation of AI, and we conclude the article by providing a number of reasons for preferring a rights-based approach over a risk-based approach. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1467-8519 |
| Contient: | Enthalten in: Bioethics
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1111/bioe.13124 |