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

Artificial intelligence (AI) is changing how doctors work. In hospitals, AI tools now help staff read X-rays, summarize patient conversations, and even suggest treatments. While these tools can save time and improve care, they also bring new risks. A recent report from the Medical Protection Society (MPS) warns that doctors and the National Health Service (NHS) could face legal action for mistakes made by these computer programs.

Under current laws, doctors can be held liable—meaning they are legally responsible—if a patient is harmed, even if the error was caused by an AI tool. The MPS, which represents doctors, says that medical staff might become a "liability sink." This means they could be the main target for lawsuits when technology fails. Dr. Sarah Townley, the deputy medical director at the MPS, explained that the law is struggling to keep up with the speed of new technology. She noted that the gap between the law and modern AI is growing very quickly.

To understand the danger, consider how AI is used today. An AI system might look at a chest X-ray and fail to see a tumor. Because the AI says the patient is healthy, the doctor might not provide treatment, and the cancer could spread. In another example, an AI might suggest a wrong dose of a medicine that thins the blood. If this leads to severe bleeding, the doctor could be blamed for the mistake. The MPS warns that in these cases, the doctor might be held completely responsible for the harm caused by the technology.

Many medical professionals are worried about this situation. Dr. Ragit Varia, the president-elect of the Society for Acute Medicine, said that innovation and patient safety must move forward together. He compared the slow pace of government rules to a car waiting in a pit lane while technology moves at the speed of a race car. He argued that doctors should not be left holding a "liability hot potato"—a difficult situation where someone must take the blame—for decisions influenced by systems created by other people.

To fix this, the MPS has asked the government to change how AI tools are classified. They want these systems to be treated as products under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. If AI tools are legally defined as products, it would be easier to hold the companies that build and sell them responsible for errors. This change would help protect doctors and hospitals from being sued for mistakes that the technology itself made. The MPS believes this is necessary to keep public trust in the medical system high.

Others agree that clear rules are essential. Ahmed Binesmael, a senior policy analyst at the Health Foundation, noted that public confidence in AI depends on having strong safeguards in place. He explained that people need to know who is responsible if something goes wrong. Without these protections, patients might become afraid of new technology, which could stop the healthcare system from using helpful tools.

In response to these concerns, the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) said it is taking the matter seriously. A spokesperson for the department stated that they welcome the report from the MPS. They confirmed that NHS Resolution, the group that handles legal claims against hospitals in England, is currently working on new guidelines for AI liability. The government plans to review the recommendations to ensure that patients can continue to benefit from AI safely and quickly.

As AI continues to enter hospitals, the debate over responsibility will likely grow. While the technology offers great potential to improve medical care, the legal framework must evolve to match it. For now, doctors remain in a difficult position, waiting for the government to create a system that balances the benefits of new tools with the need for clear accountability. Ensuring that developers are responsible for their products may be the key to a future where both doctors and patients feel safe using AI.