The Consequences of the AI Act and Proposed AI Liability Directive on Medical Negligence

The European Union (EU) has initiated a two-fold approach to regulating AI, consisting of the Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) and the proposed AI Liability Directive. This paper takes an exploratory approach to critically evaluate the new regulation and proposals in resolving medical negligence claims, through using example case studies to highlight the realities and applicability of the regulations in ʻreal world’ scenarios. Through assessment of the England and Wales common law, this paper argues that the duty of care owed by physicians when collaborating with AI is currently not fit for purpose. In addition, this paper highlights that enforcement of the new Act and proposed Directive will lead to physicians falling victim to ʻred tape’ rules, and in turn, stifle innovation and reduce the benefits AI can bring to the healthcare sector. Finally, the paper argues that the legislative stance leaves many questions regarding the practicalities of medical negligence unanswered, highlighting the future difficulties the courts will face in applying the new rules once approved.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Oslo Law Review
Published
2024-10-31
DOI
https://doi.org/10.18261/olr.11.1.4
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.88
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The Consequences of the AI Act and Proposed AI Liability Directive on Medical Negligence

Chloe Haden
2 citations
Oslo Law Review
Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues
1.88
article

The Consequences of the AI Act and Proposed AI Liability Directive on Medical Negligence

Chloe Haden
article en
2 citations

Abstract

The European Union (EU) has initiated a two-fold approach to regulating AI, consisting of the Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) and the proposed AI Liability Directive. This paper takes an exploratory approach to critically evaluate the new regulation and proposals in resolving medical negligence claims, through using example case studies to highlight the realities and applicability of the regulations in ʻreal world’ scenarios. Through assessment of the England and Wales common law, this paper argues that the duty of care owed by physicians when collaborating with AI is currently not fit for purpose. In addition, this paper highlights that enforcement of the new Act and proposed Directive will lead to physicians falling victim to ʻred tape’ rules, and in turn, stifle innovation and reduce the benefits AI can bring to the healthcare sector. Finally, the paper argues that the legislative stance leaves many questions regarding the practicalities of medical negligence unanswered, highlighting the future difficulties the courts will face in applying the new rules once approved.

Oslo Law ReviewVol. 11(1)
University of Hertfordshire (GB), Arden University (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 12%
Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues
1.88
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

The Consequences of the AI Act and Proposed AI Liability Directive on Medical Negligence — Chloe Haden · Oslo Law Review (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS