Navigating the medicolegal landscape of artificial intelligence in anaesthesia and peri-operative medicine

Comprehensive Summary

This editorial outlines the continual legal and ethical challenges as artificial intelligence moves from a good idea, to an active clinical tool in the operating room. This article specifically determines the liability gap, specifically who is at fault when an AI recommendation leads to an adverse patient event. It makes it hard when many models operate as a “Black Box,” meaning the logic behind their predictions cannot be easily explained to a patient or jury, which makes it difficult to figure whether the developer, physician, or hospital system is responsible legally. They emphasize that AI should be strictly classified as a supportive tool, rather than an autonomous decision maker until frameworks and clear standards of care are established.

Outcomes and Implications

When we begin to give more power to the AI systems we implement, it begs the question of who was placing at the greatest legal risk. For now, the authors determined that there needs to be a strict supportive role with AI, because we do not have a proper system yet in place to give these programs specific protocols and standardized care to follow. With many of the issues in AI, such as high false positive esophageal intubations, and predicting difficult airways when they are not difficult, it could lead physicians to make mistakes due to so many false alarms, just as an example. While AI is a great tool, it needs to stay as a supplement to the physicians decision making until legal safeguards are in place.