The right to a second opinion on Artificial Intelligence diagnosis—Remedying the inadequacy of a risk-based regulation

Thomas Ploug*, Søren Holm

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

7 Citations (Scopus)
78 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
JournalBioethics
Volume37
Issue number3
Pages (from-to)303-311
Number of pages9
ISSN0269-9702
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2023

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 The Authors. Bioethics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Keywords

  • AI regulation
  • AI rights
  • AI risks
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • second opinion

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The right to a second opinion on Artificial Intelligence diagnosis—Remedying the inadequacy of a risk-based regulation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this