Cited by 25Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationEthics and Social Impacts of AIDigitalization, Law, and Regulation

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) and decision-making: Legal & ethical hurdles for implementation in mental health

Open access
Solaiman, Barry·2024·International Journal of Law and Psychiatry

Abstract

This article argues that significant risks are being taken with using GenAI in mental health that should be assessed urgently. It recommends that guidelines for using generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in mental health care must be established promptly. Currently, clinicians using chatbots without appropriate approval risk undermining legal protections for patients. This could harm the patient and undermine the standards of the profession, undermining trust in an area where human involvement in decision-making is critical. To explore these concerns, this paper is divided into three parts. First, it examines the needs of patients in mental health. Second, it explores the potential benefits of GenAI in mental health and highlights the risks of its use as it pertains to patient needs. Third, it notes the ethical and legal concerns around data use and medical liability that require careful attention. The impact of the European Union's (EU) Artificial Intelligence Act (AI-Act) is also considered. It will be seen that these laws are insufficient in the context of mental health. As such, the paper recommends that guidelines should be developed to help resolve the existing legal gaps until codified rules are established.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijlp.2024.102028

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Hallucinations can be exacerbated by LLM-CBs' tendencies to attempt to cover up errors or when users trust LLM-CBs due to their anthropomorphic design or established emotional connections.

    “Furthermore, hallucinations can be exacerbated by LLM-CBs’ tendencies to attempt to cover up errors37 or when users trust LLM-CBs due to their anthropomorphic design or established emotional connections48,54.”
  • As general-purpose LLMs are not medical applications, entered data is not protected with the standards typical for medical data, and data protection often fails HIPAA standards.

    “As general-purpose LLMs are not medical applications, entered data is not protected with the standards typical for medical data, and data protection often fails HIPAA standards41,48.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 50 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Solaiman, B.
Affiliations
Weill Cornell Medical College in Qatar (QA)
Corresponding author
Solaiman, Barry
Venue
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-11
Volume
97
Pages
102028
ISSN
0160-2527 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4403526037
Cited by
24
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 13
FWCI
2.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Law and Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
Keywords
generative AI, mental health services, chatbots, clinical decision-making, legal liability, medical liability, data protection, AI ethics, EU AI Act, professional guidelines, patient trust
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Decision Making, European Union, Humans, Mental Health, Mental Health Services, Liability, Legal

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