Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41018553›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical ethics and history of medicine2025

Why is the idea of AI completely replacing physicians a pseudo-problem? a philosophical analysis.

Alireza Monajemi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. AI in respiratory care: findings from the GOLD report.Journal of translational medicine · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Alireza MonajemiAssociate Professor, Philosophy of Science and Technology Department, History and Philosophy of Science Faculty, Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies, Tehran, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AI in medicineClinical judgmentEmbodimentPhilosophy of medicinePhilosophy of technology.

Identifiers

PMID41018553
PMCPMC12474520

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.