We've had expert systems since the 80s that were better at experts at some tasks (the paper I read was about antibiotic choice and dose). The problem is never with their effectiveness, it is all the issues around who is responsible for the patient.
If the doctor didn't update the software, who should be liable if something bad happens?
If the program has a bug, who should be liable?
Does the doctor have the responsibility to double check the recommendations made by the AI/expert system?
etc etc
It's much easier to just have a single point of responsibility (the doctor), as it makes the legal questions more simple.
> It's much easier to just have a single point of responsibility (the doctor), as it makes the legal questions more simple.
The way it currently stands is even with dilution of authority the doctor is still the final point of liability. It’s a topic of heated anger in the physician community. If you don’t let midlevels work with nearly unlimited autonomy (so the hospital can use them to lax efficiency) you Will be replaced ... but you’re liable for them. The phlebotomy system fails to populate a blood gas order? Your fault for not micromanaging every element in the hospital operation, over which you have basically no authority, because you’re just another line worker (but thanks for carrying the liability.) Dics carry liability for everything as though we are in charge, and we are actually just highly specialized line workers taking orders from above.
It’d be nice if we were only held responsible for our own errors of medical judgment.
If the doctor didn't update the software, who should be liable if something bad happens?
If the program has a bug, who should be liable?
Does the doctor have the responsibility to double check the recommendations made by the AI/expert system?
etc etc
It's much easier to just have a single point of responsibility (the doctor), as it makes the legal questions more simple.