IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/medlaw/v33y2025i1p5..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Regulating algorithmic care in the European Union: evolving doctor–patient models through the Artificial Intelligence Act (AI-Act) and the liability directives

Author

Listed:
  • Barry Solaiman
  • Abeer Malik

Abstract

This article argues that the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into healthcare, particularly under the European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act (AI-Act), poses significant implications for the doctor–patient relationship. While historically paternalistic, Western medicine now emphasises patient autonomy within a consumeristic paradigm, aided by technological advancements. However, hospitals worldwide are adopting AI more rapidly than before, potentially reshaping patient care dynamics. Three potential pathways emerge: enhanced patient autonomy, increased doctor control via AI, or disempowerment of both parties as decision-making shifts to private entities. This article contends that without addressing flaws in the AI-Act’s risk-based approach, private entities could be empowered at the expense of patient autonomy. While proposed directives like the AI Liability Directive (AILD) and the revised Directive on Liability for Defective Products (revised PLD) aim to mitigate risks, they may not address the limitations of the AI-Act. Caution must be exercised in the future interpretation of the emerging regulatory architecture to protect patient autonomy and to preserve the central role of healthcare professionals in the care of their patients.

Suggested Citation

  • Barry Solaiman & Abeer Malik, 2025. "Regulating algorithmic care in the European Union: evolving doctor–patient models through the Artificial Intelligence Act (AI-Act) and the liability directives," Medical Law Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(1), pages 1-5..
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:33:y:2025:i:1:p:5.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/medlaw/fwae033
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:33:y:2025:i:1:p:5.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/medlaw .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.