Using artificial intelligence in healthcare: Allocating liability and risks

Within the framework of this article, the author considers the features regarding the application and use of artificial intelligence (AI) in medical practice. This includes complex issues related to the personal liability of a doctor when making decisions on diagnostics and treatment based on an algorithm proposal (a system for supporting medical decisions), as well as possible options for the responsibility of the algorithm (AI) developer. The analysis provides an overview of the existing system for holding medical professionals accountable, as well as an assessment of possible options for the distribution of responsibility in connection with the widespread introduction of AI into the work of doctors alongside the possible introduction of AI into standard medical care. The author considers the possibility of establishing more serious requirements for the collection of information on the side effects of such devices for an AI registered as a medical device. Using the method of legal analysis and the comparative legal method, the author analyzes the current global trends in the distribution of responsibility for harm in such cases where there is an error and/or inaccuracy in making a medical decision; as a result of this, the author demonstrates possible options for the distribution of the roles of the healthcare professional and AI in the near future.

Exploring stakeholder attitudes towards AI in clinical practice

ObjectivesDifferent stakeholders may hold varying attitudes towards artificial intelligence (AI) applications in healthcare, which may constrain their acceptance if AI developers fail to take them into account. We set out to ascertain evidence of the attitudes of clinicians, consumers, managers, researchers, regulators and industry towards AI applications in healthcare.MethodsWe undertook an exploratory analysis of articles whose titles or abstracts contained the terms ‘artificial intelligence’ or ‘AI’ and ‘medical’ or ‘healthcare’ and ‘attitudes’, ‘perceptions’, ‘opinions’, ‘views’, ‘expectations’. Using a snowballing strategy, we searched PubMed and Google Scholar for articles published 1 January 2010 through 31 May 2021. We selected articles relating to non-robotic clinician-facing AI applications used to support healthcare-related tasks or decision-making.ResultsAcross 27 studies, attitudes towards AI applications in healthcare, in general, were positive, more so for those with direct experience of AI, but provided certain safeguards were met. AI applications which automated data interpretation and synthesis were regarded more favourably by clinicians and consumers than those that directly influenced clinical decisions or potentially impacted clinician–patient relationships. Privacy breaches and personal liability for AI-related error worried clinicians, while loss of clinician oversight and inability to fully share in decision-making worried consumers. Both clinicians and consumers wanted AI-generated advice to be trustworthy, while industry groups emphasised AI benefits and wanted more data, funding and regulatory certainty.DiscussionCertain expectations of AI applications were common to many stakeholder groups from which a set of dependencies can be defined.ConclusionStakeholders differ in some but not all of their attitudes towards AI. Those developing and implementing applications should consider policies and processes that bridge attitudinal disconnects between different stakeholders.

Law within medical practice

This chapter sets out the basic legal framework governing medical practice. Essentially it is the law of tort that governs NHS work, while contracts play a more significant role in private medicine. The chapter explains the NHS Indemnity that plays an important role in protecting NHS staff from personal liability under civil law.

NOWHERE TO HIDE FOR EXECUTIVES Fourie v FirstRand Bank Ltd (578/2012) [2012] ZASCA 19 (18 September 2012)

The personal liability of managers and executives for damages arising out of fraudulent and reckless conduct of their employees is an emotive and important issue. The prestige that was once associated with holding a position in top management in a company is now overshadowed by the potential of increased personal vulnerability. The case of Fourie v FirstRand Bank Ltd ((578/2012) [2012] ZASCA 119 (18 September 2012)) sends out a strong message to those who occupy management positions and who conduct the affairs of a company in a fraudulent or reckless manner that such conduct will not be tolerated and that should they produce false and misleading financial statements regarding the affairs of their company they run the risk of being held personally liable for any damages that may be incurred. The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) stated that any damages that arise from such managers’ fraud or recklessness under section 424 of theCompanies Act 61 of 1973 will be paid by the perpetrators in their personal capacity.

Financial institutions and anti-money laundering violations: who is to bear the burden of liability?

Purpose Money laundering (ML) is one of the greatest challenges, the global community faces today. Corporate entities such as financial institutions (FIs) are most susceptible to facilitate and launder money. The paper raises the following question: Who is to bear the burden of liability? Either a corporation or an individual, thus this paper examines liability issues in a corporate setting particularly financial institutions, which arise from regulatory noncompliance or failure to oversight in the context of ML. Design/methodology/approach The study is legal doctrinal mainly based on case laws, legislation and research articles. Findings Firstly, this study provides how the concept of liability in a corporate setting in UK and USA has drifted from its traditional “duty to care” standard to a new “duty to oversight” and “Responsible Corporate Officer” concepts resulting a shift in corporate to individual liability. Secondly, in the context of anti-ML violations in FIs, imposition of corporate or personal liability solely may not effectively deter ML and may create conflicts between management and shareholders. Practical implications The paper can be a source to explore the issue of ML liability for regulatory noncompliance based on UK, USA and Pakistan law. Originality/value This paper demonstrates that the imposition of either corporate or personal liability may create dilemma either for shareholders or management; however, a “combine or collective liability” approach carries potential to retard ML activities in FIs and balancing the harm-penalties incurred upon a corporation while addressing shareholders concerns.

16. Priorities in Registered Land

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter explores the defences against pre-existing property rights that are available to a party who acquires for value and registers a right in registered land. The Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA 2002) offers a distinct set of priority rules for one category of transaction: a registrable disposition of a registered estate for valuable consideration. The chapter analyses the priority rules applicable to such transactions, including the effect of the entry of a land registry notice, the category of ‘overriding interests’ (property rights immune to a lack-of-registration defence), and limitations on the powers of a registered owner. The chapter concludes by examining the policy of the LRA 2002 to transactions that are tainted by fraud or wrongdoing that is not such as to invalidate the transaction. Such transactions may result, under the general law, in the creation of new direct rights which may, for example, impose personal liability on a registered party.

8. Corporate and vicarious liability

This chapter focuses on the potential criminal liability of organizations, particularly corporations. Corporations have a separate legal identity and are treated in law as having a legal personality distinct from the people who make up the corporation. Therefore, in theory at least, criminal liability may be imposed on the corporation separately from any liability imposed on the individual members. There are currently six ways in which a corporation or its directors may be prosecuted: personal liability of corporate directors, etc; strict liability offences; statutory offences imposing duties on corporations; vicarious liability; the identification doctrine; and statutory liability of corporate officers. The chapter also discusses the limits of corporate liability, the distinction between vicarious liability and personal duty, the application of vicarious liability, the delegation principle and the ‘attributed act’ principle. The chapter examines the failure to prevent offences found in the Bribery Act 2010 and the Criminal Finances Act 2017.

Interest Due under Article 19 of the Tax and Insurance Procedure Code

A special case of personal liability of the management of taxable legal entities has been created through the provisions of Article 19 of the Tax and Insurance Procedure Code (TIPC). Following the amendments to the aforementioned legal provisions, which have come into force on 4 August and 21 November 2017, the subjective scope of the liability under Article 19 of the TIPC has been significantly expanded as it currently covers the majority owners of the taxable person’s capital and, in certain situations, the shareholders holding minority shares. In relation to the increasing number of tax audit proceedings focusing on the realization of the liability under Article 19 of the TIPC, and the expanding case law on the application of the above-mentioned legal provisions, the scope of Article 19 of the TIPC requires a more detailed analysis, particularly of the interest due.