Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Medical malpractice in the age of AI: Who will bear the blame?

Doctor holding a tablet projecting holographic data
pcess609/Getty Images

Pearl, the author of “ChatGPT, MD,” teaches at both the Stanford University School of Medicine and the Stanford Graduate School of Business. He is a former CEO of The Permanente Medical Group.

More than two-thirds of U.S. physicians havechanged their minds about generative artificial intelligence and now view the technology as beneficial to health care. But as AI grows more powerful and prevalent in medicine, apprehensions remain high among medical professionals.

For the last 18 months, I’ve examined the potential uses and misuses of generative AI in medicine — research that culminated my new book,ChatGPT, MD.” Over that time, I’ve seen the fears of clinicians evolve — from worries over AI’s reliability and, consequently, patient safety to a new set of fears: Who will be held liable when something goes wrong?


Technology experts have grown increasingly optimistic that next generations of AI technology will prove reliable and safe for patients, especially underexpert human oversight. As evidence, recall that Google’s first medical AI model, Med-PaLM, achieved a mere “passing score” (>60 percent) on the U.S. medical licensing exam in late 2022. Five months later, its successor, Med-PaLM 2, scored at an “expert” doctor level (85 percent).

Since then,numerous studies have shown that generative AI increasingly outperforms medical professionals in various tasks. These include diagnosis, treatment decisions, data analysis andeven empathy.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Despite these advancements, errors in medicine can and will occur, regardless of whether the expertise comes from human clinicians or advanced AI technologies.

Legal experts anticipate that as AI tools become more integrated into health care, determining liability will come down to whether errors result from AI decisions, human oversight or a combination of both.

For instance, if doctors use a generative AI tool in their offices for diagnosing or treating a patient and something goes wrong, the physician would likely be held liable, especially if it’s deemed that clinical judgment should have overridden the AI’s recommendations.

But the scenarios get more complex when generative AI is used without direct physician oversight. As an example, who is liable when patients rely on generative AI’s medical advice without consulting a doctor? Or what if a clinician encourages a patient to use an at-home AI tool for help with interpreting wearable device data, and the AI’s advice leads to a serious health issue?

In a working paper, legal scholars from the University of Michigan, Penn State and Harvard explored these challenges, noting: “Demonstrating the cause of an injury is already often hard in the medical context, where outcomes are frequently probabilistic rather than deterministic. Adding in AI models that are often non intuitive and sometimes inscrutable will likely make causation even more challenging to demonstrate.”

To get a better handle on the risks posed to clinicians when using AI, I spoke with Michelle Mello, professor of law and health policy at Stanford University and lead author of “Understanding Liability Risk from Using Health Care Artificial Intelligence Tools.”

Her analysis, based on hundreds of tort cases, suggests that current legal precedents around software liability could be adapted to include AI. However, she points out that direct case law on any type of AI model remains “very sparse.” And when it comes to liability implications of using generative AI, specifically, there’s no public record of such cases being litigated.

So, for medical professionals worried about the risks of implementing AI, Mello offers reassurances mixed with warnings.

“At the end of the day, it has almost always been the case that the physician is on the hook when things go wrong in patient care,” she noted, but added: “As long as physicians are using this to inform a decision with other information and not acting like a robot, deciding purely based on the output, I suspect they’ll have a fairly strong defense against most of the claims that might relate to their use of GPTs.”

To minimize the risk, Mello said AI should be implemented as a supportive tool to enhance (not replace) clinical decisions. She also urges health care professionals to negotiate terms of service with major AI developers like Nvidia, OpenAI and Google, whose current disclaimers deny any liability for medical harm.

While concerns about the use of generative AI in health care are understandable, it’s critical to weigh these fears against the existing flaws in medical practice.

Each year, misdiagnoses lead to 371,000 American deaths while another 424,000 patients suffer permanent disabilities. Meanwhile, more than 250,000 deaths occur due to avoidable medical errors in the United States. Half a million people die annually from poorly managed chronic diseases, leading to preventable heart attacks, strokes, cancers, kidney failures and amputations.

Our nation’s health care professionals don’t have the time available in their daily practice to address the totality of patient needs. The demand for medical care is higher than ever at a time when health insurers — with their restrictive policies and bureaucratic requirements — make it harder than ever to provide excellent care.

It is imperative for policymakers, legal experts and health care professionals to collaborate on a framework that promotes the safe and effective use of AI. As part of their work, they’ll need to address concerns over liability. But they must recognize that the risks of not using generative AI to improve care will far outweigh the dangers posed by the technology itself. Only then can our nation reduce the enormous human toll resulting from our current medical failures.

Read More

Teen girl reading unpleasant messages on mobile phone
Juan Algar/Getty Images

Holiday cards vs. the never-ending barrage of social media

“How we spend our days is how we spend our lives.” — Annie Dillard

There was a time, not so long ago, when holiday cards were the means by which acquaintances updated us on their lives. Often featuring family photos with everyone dressed up, or perhaps casual with a seaside or mountainside backdrop, it was understood this was a “best shot” curated to feature everybody happily together.

Those holiday cards were eagerly opened, shared and even saved. Occasionally they might broach boundaries of good taste, perhaps featuring a photo of the sender’s new Lexus shining brightly as the Christmas star, or containing more pages than an IKEA assembly pack and listing the fifth grader’s achievements. But most of the time these cards conveyed the annual family update and welcome holiday cheer.

Keep ReadingShow less
Dictionary entry for "democracy"
Lobro78.Getty Images

Paving the path forward to strengthening democracy

Kristina Becvar and David L. Nevins, co-publishers of The Fulcrum, announced recently that effective Jan. 1, Hugo Balta, The Fulcrum’s director of solutions journalism and DEI initiatives, will serve as executive editor. What follows is a message from Balta about his new responsibility.

In the aftermath of this year’s contentious presidential election, it is imperative to heal a democracy fractured by polarization, emphasizing the importance of dialogue, accountability, and inclusive and transparent governance.

Journalism plays a pivotal role in upholding democratic values and ensuring the health of democratic systems. As our country faces complex challenges, the significance of a free and independent press becomes increasingly evident.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hugo Balta

The Fulcrum's new executive editor: Hugo Balta

As co-publishers of The Fulcrum, we are proud to announce that, effective Jan. 1, Hugo Balta, The Fulcrum’s director of solutions journalism and DEI initiatives, will serve as executive editor.

Hugo is an award-winning, 30-year multimedia journalism veteran with multiple market and platform experience, including leadership positions in NBC, Telemundo, ABC, CBS, and PBS, among other storied news networks. A nationally recognized diversity in journalism advocate, he is the recipient of the 2024 Cecilia Vaisman Award from Northwestern University Medill School of Journalism, Media, Integrated Marketing Communications. Hugo is the only person to serve twice as president of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists. Hugo and his family live in Chicago.

Keep ReadingShow less
Cell phone showing logos of Google, Amazon, Meta, Apple and Microsfot
Jaque Silva/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Big Tech is suppressing industrial liberty

This is the second entry in “Big Tech and Democracy,” a series designed to assist American citizens in understanding the impact technology is having — and will have — on our democracy. The series explores the benefits and risks that lie ahead and offers possible solutions.

Industrial liberty — once a cornerstone of American antitrust policy — has faded into obscurity in the shadow of Big Tech’s overwhelming dominance. In short, industrial liberty refers to your ability to use and benefit from your skills, your knowledge and your passion. It manifests as entrepreneurs and small-business owners, through patents and innovations, and as everyday folks finding good work every day. This erosion of this specific sort of liberty not only undermines the principles of competition but also stifles the aspirational spirit that has for so long distinguished the American public.

Keep ReadingShow less