The right to a second opinion on Artificial Intelligence diagnosis—Remedying the inadequacy of a risk‐based regulation
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21504688 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Thomas Ploug (0000-0002-3693-0547, Centre of Applied Ethics and Philosophy of Science, Department of Communication and Psychology Aalborg University Copenhagen Denmark, corresponding author), Søren Holm (0000-0003-1411-1855, Centre for Social Ethics and Policy, School of Law University of Manchester Manchester UK) |
| Year | 2023 |
| Volume | 37 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 303-311 |
| Publication date | 2023-03-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Bioethics (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0269-9702 • E-ISSN: 1467-8519 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/bioe.13124 |
| PMID | 36434807 |
| OpenAlex | W4310296977 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 1 |
In this paper, we argue that patients who are subjects of Artificial Intelligence (AI)‐supported diagnosis and treatment planning should have a right to a second opinion, but also that this right should not necessarily be construed as a right to a physician opinion. The right to a second opinion could potentially be satisfied by another independent AI system. Our considerations on the right to second opinion are embedded in the wider debate on different approaches to the regulation of AI, and we conclude the article by providing a number of reasons for preferring a rights‐based approach over a risk‐based approach
Expert opinion · Pathology · Political science · Politics · Public opinion · Second opinion · Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education · Ethics and Social Impacts of AI · Ethics in Clinical Research · Law · Medicine · Psychology
| Citations per year | 1.5 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2024 - 2026 (3) |
| Highly cited | No |