ISSN: 2222-6990
Open access
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is poised to contribute significant impacts in medical diagnostic and decision making by enabling unparalleled performance leaps. The integration of AI to medical diagnosis and decision-making process potentially scales down the number of medical errors and misdiagnoses — and allow diagnosis based on unidentified, black-boxed interpretations of data. However, by transferring parts of the decision-making role to an algorithm, increased reliance on AI impedes potential malpractice claims when doctors pursue erroneous treatment based on algorithmic recommendations. With more controversial errors surrounding the technology is in the offing, the conventional requirement of informed consent underpinning the operation of medical malpractice is a bottleneck. As AI proliferates in healthcare, new ethical and practical problems concerning informed consent surged. These problems have been the motivation behind this research whereby the use of AI, particularly in determining the course of treatment or procedures for patients, invites such concerns over the informed consent requirement. Indeed, these are novel challenges that surrounds the adoption of AI in the healthcare domain which is vital to be addressed. Therefore, this research investigates how AI intersects with the concept of informed consent and proceed to determine to what extent AI’s involvement in a patient’s health should be disclosed under the current doctrine. Combining doctrinal analysis and a case study approach, this research explores legal propositions through the reasoning of statutory provisions, related case law and reports of medical malpractice claims addressing the potential treatment error given at the suggestion of an AI system. The research has contributed in expanding the requirement of informed consent in light of the use of AI for clinical decision making. This outcome is significant in shaping the transparency and trustworthiness in the governance of AI in healthcare. Such contribution is ultimately in tandem with the Strategic Thrust 2 of the Shared Prosperity Vision 2030 initiated by the Ministry of Economic Affairs in restructuring the priorities of Malaysia’s development. This is aimed at revolutionising the healthcare ecosystem through transformative technologies and comprehensive ICT solutions outlined in the Key Economic Growth Activities (KEGA) 14, which includes AI as advanced and modern services. An operative malpractice liability framework is paramount in providing incentives for policing accurate diagnosis and treatment decisions for patients, all whilst savouring the benefits of disruptive medical technologies like AI.
Ahmad, M., & Rohana, A. R. (2016). The Role of Expert Evidence in Medical Negligence Litigation in Malaysia. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 24(3), 1057–1068. http://repo.uum.edu.my
Allain, J. S. (2013). From Jeopardy! To Jaundice: The Medical Liability Implications of Dr. Watson and Other Artificial Intelligence Systems. Louisiana Law Review, 73(4), 1049–1079.
Amirthalingam, K. (2015). Medical Negligence and Patient Autonomy Bolam Rules in Singapore and Malaysia – Revisited. Singapore Academy of Law Journal, 27(1), 666–693. https://heinonline-org.ezaccess.library.uitm.edu.my
Barfield, W. (2018). Liability for autonomous and artificially intelligent robots. Paladyn, 9(1), 193–203.
Bryden, D., & Storey, I. (2011). Duty of care and medical negligence. Continuing Education in Anaesthesia, Critical Care and Pain, 11(4), 124–127.
Cohen, I. G. (2020). Informed Consent and Medical Artificial Intelligence: What to Tell the Patient? Georgetown Law Journal 1425., 108(6), 1425–1470.
Council, M. M. (2016). Malaysian Medical Council Guideline: Consent for Treatment of Patients by Registered Medical Practitioners. http://www.mmc.gov.my
Dueno, T. (2020). Racist Robots And The Lack Of Legal Remedies In The Use Of Artificial Intelligence In Healthcare. Connecticut Insurance Law Journal, 27(1), 337–358.
Epstein, N. E. (2018). Legal and evidenced-based definitions of standard of care- Implications for code of ethics of professional medical societies.pdf. Surgical Neurology International.
Esham, A. D. B. (2019). The Doctrine of Informed Consent and Duty of Disclosure: A Comparative Essay between the US, UK, Australia and Malaysia with Indonesia. Indonesian Comparative Law Review, 2(1), 13–27.
Giuffrida, I., Lederer, F., & Vermerys, N. (2018). A Legal Perspective on the Trials and Tribulations of AI: How Artificial Intelligence, the Internet of Things, Smart Contracts, and Other Technologies Will Affect the Law. Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume, 68(3), 748–781.
Griffin, F. (2021). Artificial Intelligence and Liability in Health Care. Health Matrix: Journal of Law-Medicine, 31, 65–106. https://papers.ssrn.com
Jiang, F. (2017). Data Analytics Helps Business Decision Making. Western Oregon University Digital Commons@WOU Student, March, 3–42. https://digitalcommons.wou.edu
Kamensky, S. (2020). Artificial Intelligence and Technology in Health Care: Overview and Possible Legal Implications. DePaul Journal of Health Care Law, 21(3), 1–18. https://heinonline-org.ezaccess.library.uitm.edu.my
Kassim, P. N. J., & Ibrahim, A. (2002). Medical Negligence Litigation in Malaysia?: Current Trend and Proposals for Reform. In Medical Defence Malaysian Berhad. http://mdm.org.my
Kassim, P. N. J., & Ibrahim, A. (2010). Mediating medical negligence claims in Malaysia?: an option for reform. In: Mediation in Malaysia?: the law and practice. In IIUM REPOSITORY (IREP) (pp. 321–337). LexisNexis Malaysia Sdn Bhd.
http://www.asiapacificmediationforum.org
Koong, J. K., Rajandram, R., Sidambram, N., & Narayanan, V. (2021). The effectiveness of handout assisted versus verbal consent on post-operative recall and understanding - A randomized control study. The Surgeon, 1–8.
Mason, C. (1992). Rogers v. Whitaker - Global Health & Human Rights Database. November. https://www.globalhealthrights.org
Matsuzaki, T. (2018). Ethical Issues of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine. California Western Law Review, 55(1), 255–274.
Pandit, M. S., & Pandit, S. (2009). Medical negligence: Coverage of the profession, duties, ethics, case law, and enlightened defense - A legal perspective. Indian Journal of Urology, 25(3), 372–378.
Samoili, S., Cobo, L. M., Gómez, E., De Prato, G., Martínez-Plumed, F., & Delipetrev, B. (2020). AI Watch - Defining Artificial Intelligence. Towards an operational definition and taxonomy of artificial intelligence. In Joint Research Centre (European Commission).
Shabbir, J., & Anwer, T. (2015). Artificial Intelligence and its Role in Near Future. 14(8), 1–11. http://arxiv.org/abs/1804.01396
Sheet, F. (2015). Hysterectomy Fact Sheet. The National Women’s Health Week Network. https://www.nwhn.org
Smith, H., & Fotheringham, K. (2020). Artificial intelligence in clinical decision-making: Rethinking liability. Medical Law International, 20(2), 131–154.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0968533220945766
Solaiman, B. (2021). Addressing Access with Artificial Intelligence?: Overcoming the Limitations of Deep Learning to Broaden Remote Care Today. Universty of Memphis Law Review, 51(4), 1103–1142. https://heinonline-org.ezaccess.library.uitm.edu.my
Vladeck, D. C. (2014). Machines without principals: Liability rules and artificial intelligence. Washington Law Review, 89(1), 117–150. https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu
Wadden, J. J. (2021). What Kind of Artificial Intelligence Should We Want for Use in Healthcare Decision-Making Applications? Canadian Journal of Bioethics, 4(1), 94–100.
Yadav, J., Yadav, M., & Chand, S. (2020). Medical Negligence and Its determinants. International Journal of Recent Scientific Research, 11(11), 40080–40082.
In-Text Citation: (Saripan et al., 2021)
To Cite this Article: Saripan, H., Putera, N. S. F. M. S., Hassan, R. A., & Abdullah, S. M. (2021). Artificial Intelligence and Medical Negligence in Malaysia: Confronting the Informed Consent Dilemma. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 11(11), 293 – 302.
Copyright: © 2021 The Author(s)
Published by Human Resource Management Academic Research Society (www.hrmars.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode