Artificial intelligence in healthcare: an Italian perspective on ethical and medico-legal implications.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a multidisciplinary field intersecting computer science, cognitive science, and other disciplines, able to address the creation of systems that perform tasks generally requiring human intelligence. It consists of algorithms and computational methods that allow machines to learn from data, make decisions, and perform complex tasks, aiming to develop an intelligent system that can work independently or collaboratively with humans. Since AI technologies may help physicians in life-threatening disease prevention and diagnosis and make treatment smart and more targeted, they are spreading in health services. Indeed, humans and machines have unique strengths and weaknesses and can complement each other in providing and optimizing healthcare. However, the healthcare implementation of these technologies is related to emerging ethical and deontological issues regarding the fearsome reduction of doctors' decision-making autonomy and acting discretion, generally strongly conditioned by cognitive elements concerning the specific clinical case. Moreover, this new operational dimension also modifies the usual allocation system of responsibilities in case of adverse events due to healthcare malpractice, thus probably imposing a redefinition of the established medico-legal assessment criteria of medical professional liability. This article outlines the new challenges arising from AI healthcare integration and the possible ways to overcome them, with a focus on Italian legal framework. In this evolving and transitional context emerges the need to balance the human dimension with the artificial one, without mutual exclusion, for a new concept of medicine "with" machines and not "of" machines.

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 Sablone, Bellino, Cardinale, Esposito, Sessa and Salerno.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.