Regulating AI in Health Care: The Challenges of Informed User Engagement
Abstract
The European Union's proposed Artificial Intelligence Act is a welcome, ambitious law on the regulation of AI systems. However, it underestimates the responsibilities placed on individual users to navigate the implementation of AI. Focusing on the health care sector, this policy piece examines challenges that the proposed law bypasses. First, effective human-AI collaboration in the diagnostic process hinges on the acknowledgment of AI's mediating role in this process, on forming a diagnostic dialogue between humans and AI. Second, with AI in this mediating role, the meaning of responsibility is changed to accommodate the broadened scope of clinician and patient duties, modified clinical workflows, and emergent medical norms. Finally, the challenge of media literacy concerns both the issues of access to knowledge and the ability to make informed choices regarding human-AI interaction. This policy piece suggests that embracing the complexity of the use practices is essential to achieving an effective human-AI partnership, in the medical sector and at large.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
There is a risk of AI simplifying patient narratives, emphasizing the need for AI systems to augment personalized care while maintaining essential human elements for adequate healthcare.
“In the broader context of AI decision-making, [26] points out the risk of AI simplifying patient narratives, emphasizing the need for AI systems to augment personalized care while maintaining essential human elements for adequate healthcare.”
From Balancing Privacy and Progress: A Review of Privacy Challenges, Systemic Oversight, and Patient Perceptions in AI-Driven Healthcare (2024) · cites this paper as [26]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 7 · Cited by 13
- Authors
- Kudina, O.
- Corresponding author
- Kudina, Olya
- ORCID
- Kudina, Olya
- Venue
- Hastings Center Report
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2021-06-22
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 6-7
- ISSN
- 0093-0334 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-146X
- OpenAlex
- W3174981610
- Cited by
- 13
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2
- FWCI
- 0.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Hastings Center Report (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Keywords
- AI regulation, EU AI Act, health care, human-AI collaboration, responsibility, clinical workflow, medical norms, media literacy, patient responsibility
- MeSH terms
- Artificial Intelligence, Delivery of Health Care, Health Facilities, Humans
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
