ArticleJournal of medical ethics and history of medicine2025
Why is the idea of AI completely replacing physicians a pseudo-problem? a philosophical analysis.
Article in Journal of medical ethics and history of medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI and Its Shifting Roles in the Therapeutic Relationship: Implications for Precision Medicine.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- AI in respiratory care: findings from the GOLD report.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Article
- Toward autonomous artificial intelligence agents in sports science: a modular framework for development, validation, and implementation.Biology of sport · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to revolutionize healthcare, but is unlikely to fully replace human doctors. This paper explores the limitations of AI in healthcare, focusing on three key areas: lack of embodiment, limited understanding of meaning in everyday language, and the inability to exercise judgment and clinical reasoning. Recognizing these limitations enables us to use AI to enhance our capabilities rather than allowing it to substitute humans. Following this philosophical examination of AI's limitations, I will argue that the question of whether AI will replace doctors is a misleading one. Instead, this framework advocates for synergistic human-AI collaboration in health-care settings. It necessitates the development of hybrid entities: a physician-AI partnership and a patient-AI interface. The overarching objective is to effectively address the core mission of medicine, which is providing optimal treatment and compassionate care for all patients. This hybrid model must proactively mitigate the risks of AI integration, such as exacerbation of existing health-care challenges and potential dehumanization of patient care. Within this framework, key objectives include: reducing medical errors, fostering humane doctor-patient relationships, mitigating the trend of medicalization, and ultimately improving overall public health outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.