ArticleBioethics2026
Ethical and Legal Challenges of Partially and Fully Autonomous AI in Healthcare: Reinterpreting Liability and Preserving Trust.
Article in Bioethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly embedded in healthcare in a variety of ways, ranging from semi-autonomous decision support systems to the various visions of completely autonomous clinical systems. This article explores the ethical and legal issues that accompany this shift and argues that traditional ways of understanding medical responsibility and the physician-patient relationships have been strained in light of the increasing autonomy of AI. Ethically, AI raises very acute concerns around transparency and informed consent in the case of "black-box" systems, the persistence and amplification of bias, privacy risks arising from data-intensive uses in system development, as well as the harmful effects of automation bias and professional de-skilling. The article also brings to foreground an underexplored concern-the weakening of relational trust in contexts where clinical judgment and interactions are mediated by an AI, particularly where human oversight of the situation is reduced. Legally, this article outlines challenges of liability across the autonomy spectrum and criticizes proposals that would see AI as an independent liable agent. It promotes a human-accountability model that includes clinical responsibility for assistive AI, coupled with enterprise measures of liability and post-market oversight for ever-more autonomy, backed by mutually appropriate insurance and governance measures. The article ends with some regulatory and institutional recommendations in order to facilitate safe, ethical, and equitable integration of AI in healthcare.
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.