Prohibited AI Practices in Healthcare under the European Artificial Intelligence Act

{"The":[0],"European":[1,91,183],"Union's":[2],"Artificial":[3],"Intelligence":[4],"Act":[5],"introduces":[6],"a":[7,160],"novel":[8],"regulatory":[9],"category":[10],"of":[11,37,125,175],"\\"unacceptable":[12],"risk,\\"":[13],"prohibiting":[14],"specific":[15],"AI":[16,39,46,102,176],"practices":[17],"that":[18,61,99,114,131,143],"are":[19,75],"deemed":[20],"fundamentally":[21],"incompatible":[22],"with":[23,153],"human":[24],"rights":[25],"and":[26,71,84,112,135,166,180],"ethical":[27,173],"principles.":[28],"While":[29],"much":[30],"attention":[31],"has":[32],"focused":[33],"on":[34,89],"the":[35,45,90,96,123,126,132,140,144,157,172,182],"regulation":[36],"high-risk":[38],"systems,":[40,111],"particularly":[41],"in":[42,177],"medical":[43,134],"contexts,":[44],"Act's":[47,133],"outright":[48],"bans":[49],"under":[50],"Article":[51],"5":[52],"have":[53],"received":[54],"far":[55],"less":[56],"scrutiny.":[57],"This":[58],"paper":[59,97,158],"addresses":[60],"gap":[62],"by":[63,78],"examining":[64],"how":[65,168],"these":[66,164],"prohibitions":[67,145,165],"apply":[68],"to":[69,147],"healthcare":[70],"public":[72],"health,":[73],"which":[74],"domains":[76],"defined":[77],"rapid":[79],"technological":[80],"uptake,":[81],"structural":[82],"vulnerability,":[83],"ethically":[85],"sensitive":[86],"decision-making.":[87],"Drawing":[88],"Commission's":[92],"2025":[93],"interpretative":[94],"Guidelines,":[95],"argues":[98],"several":[100],"health-related":[101],"applications,":[103],"such":[104],"as":[105],"emotion":[106],"recognition":[107],"tools,":[108],"biometric":[109],"categorisation":[110],"technologies":[113],"influence":[115],"or":[116],"target":[117],"vulnerable":[118],"populations,":[119],"may":[120],"fall":[121],"within":[122,179],"scope":[124],"bans.":[127],"It":[128],"also":[129],"shows":[130],"safety":[136],"exceptions":[137],"risk":[138],"weakening":[139],"vulnerability":[141],"protections":[142],"aim":[146],"secure.":[148],"By":[149],"integrating":[150],"legal":[151],"analysis":[152],"real-world":[154],"health":[155],"examples,":[156],"offers":[159],"framework":[161],"for":[162],"interpreting":[163],"assesses":[167],"they":[169],"should":[170],"guide":[171],"boundaries":[174],"healthcare,":[178],"beyond":[181],"context.":[184]}

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics
Published
2026-06-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1017/jme.2026.10270
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Prohibited AI Practices in Healthcare under the European Artificial Intelligence Act

Hannah van Kolfschooten
The Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
article

Prohibited AI Practices in Healthcare under the European Artificial Intelligence Act

Hannah van Kolfschooten
article en

Abstract

The European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act introduces a novel regulatory category of "unacceptable risk," prohibiting specific AI practices that are deemed fundamentally incompatible with human rights and ethical principles. While much attention has focused on the regulation of high-risk AI systems, particularly in medical contexts, the AI Act's outright bans under Article 5 have received far less scrutiny. This paper addresses that gap by examining how these prohibitions apply to healthcare and public health, which are domains defined by rapid technological uptake, structural vulnerability, and ethically sensitive decision-making. Drawing on the European Commission's 2025 interpretative Guidelines, the paper argues that several health-related AI applications, such as emotion recognition tools, biometric categorisation systems, and technologies that influence or target vulnerable populations, may fall within the scope of the bans. It also shows that the Act's medical and safety exceptions risk weakening the vulnerability protections that the prohibitions aim to secure. By integrating legal analysis with real-world health examples, the paper offers a framework for interpreting these prohibitions and assesses how they should guide the ethical boundaries of AI in healthcare, within and beyond the European context.

The Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics
University of Basel (CH)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
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.