Who is Responsible? The Legal Risks of Using AI in Healthcare

Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming a common tool in modern hospitals. From checking X-rays to writing summaries of patient visits, these systems are designed to help doctors work faster and more accurately. However, as the use of this technology grows, so do concerns about who is to blame when things go wrong. A recent report from the Medical Protection Society (MPS) has highlighted a major problem: under current laws, doctors and the National Health Service (NHS) could be held legally responsible for mistakes made by AI tools.

This issue was first raised in earlier reports, but the debate has now intensified. The MPS, which represents doctors in legal cases, warns that medics could become a "liability sink." This means they might be the main target for lawsuits when a patient is harmed by an AI error. According to the MPS, the law is moving much slower than technology. Dr. Sarah Townley, the deputy medical director at the MPS, explained that the gap between technological progress and legal rules is becoming a "widening gulf."

To understand the risks, consider how these tools work in practice. The MPS provided examples of how errors could lead to serious harm. For instance, an AI might fail to see a tumor on a chest X-ray. If the doctor trusts the AI and tells the patient they are healthy, the cancer could grow without treatment. In another scenario, an AI might suggest the wrong dose of a blood-thinning medicine, which could cause dangerous bleeding. In both cases, the doctor who relied on the AI's advice could be the one taken to court, even if they were following the system's guidance.

Many medical professionals are worried about this situation. Dr. Ragit Varia, the president-elect of the Society for Acute Medicine, compared the speed of AI development to a Formula One race. He argued that government rules and safety regulations are currently "sitting in the pit lane," meaning they are far behind. He emphasized that doctors should not be left holding a "liability hot potato"—a difficult situation where they are blamed for decisions influenced by complex systems they did not build or manage themselves. Without clear rules, there is a risk of an "accountability vacuum," where it is unclear who is truly responsible for patient safety.

To solve this, the MPS has suggested a change in the law. They want the government to classify AI tools as "products" rather than just medical services. If AI systems were treated as products under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, the companies that build and sell the technology could be held responsible for errors. This change would help protect doctors and the NHS from being blamed for mistakes caused by the software itself. Supporters of this idea believe it would also help maintain public trust in medical technology, as patients would feel safer knowing that software developers are held to high standards.

Not everyone agrees on the best path forward, but there is a general consensus that the status quo cannot continue. The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) has responded to these concerns by stating they are reviewing the recommendations. A spokesperson for the DHSC noted that they are currently drafting new guidelines on AI liability to ensure that patients continue to receive the benefits of new technology safely. They aim to balance the need for innovation with the need for patient protection.

Experts outside of the medical field also agree that the future of healthcare depends on these legal updates. Ahmed Binesmael, a senior policy analyst at the Health Foundation, noted that public confidence in AI is not just about how well the technology works. It is also about the safeguards and rules that exist to protect people. If patients do not trust that the system is fair, they may be less willing to accept AI-assisted care, which could slow down the adoption of helpful medical tools.

As the government works on these new guidelines, the medical community is waiting for clarity. The goal is to create a system where innovation and safety move forward together. Until the law is updated to reflect the reality of modern medicine, doctors will continue to work in a state of uncertainty, hoping that the tools they use to save lives do not eventually lead to their own legal trouble.